SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
RAMACHANDRAN K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23605 OF 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.RAMAKUMAR, ASHA BABU, G.ASHWINI, AMMU CHARLES, S.M.PRASANTH
For the Respondents: SREELAL N.WARRIER, SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R

The court confirmed that no additional investigation was warranted based on the existing thorough inquiries into the death classified as suicide.

Headnote:In this case, the court analyzes the investigation into the death of the petitioner's son, initially classified as a suicide, and the petitioner's request for re-investigation. Despite the petitioner's claims of inadequate investigation, the court finds that a thorough inquiry had already been conducted, leading to the conclusion that the death was indeed a suicide. The court frames the issue around whether the investigation factored the petitioner's suspicions adequately. The request for further investigation is denied with the declaration that no purpose would be served in re-opening the case.

Table of Content
1. investigation into the cause of death (Para 1 , 2)
2. investigation findings and the petitioner's claims (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's son, one Anil Kumar was found dead on the railway track at Madivayal in Pilicode Village on 4.11.2003 at about 08.00 hours. Chandera Police, Kasargod registered Crime No.289/2003 as unnatural death. After investigation, final report was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kasargod holding that it was a case of suicide. Thereafter, on the complaint of the petitioner, the case was reopened and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad conducted further investigation. He also submitted final report on 30.3.2005 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that the death is “suicide by train run over”. According to the petitioner, no proper investigation was conducted into the death of his son. It is alleged that it was not a case of suicide, but homicide. Hence, the petitioner gave Ext.P9 representation to the Chief Minister of Kerala to hand over the investigation to the CBI. The respondent No.1 gave Ext.P10 reply to the petitioner stating that proper investigation was conducted and investigation cannot be handed over to the CBI. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Ext.P10 and to give a direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct re-investigation in Crime No.289/2003 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargod.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the final report.

3. A detailed statement of facts have been filed by the Station House Officer, Chandera Police Station. I went through the statement of facts as well.

4. A perusal of the final report would show that a detailed investigation was conducted by the investigating officer initially and by the Deputy Superintendent of Police subsequently. Thirty three witnesses were questioned which included the relatives and close friends of the deceased. During the investigation it was revealed that the deceased had an illicit relationship with one Mrs. Kairali and he had visited her house on 3.11.2003 at 12.00 hours when her husband and son were not there. The investigation revealed that later on her husband reached the house and the deceased and Mrs. Kairali were caught red handed. The petitioner has raised a suspicion that the husband of Mrs.Kairali was behind the death of his son. The investigating officer conducted investigation in that line as well. Both Mrs.Kairali and her husband were questioned. The investigation revealed that due to mental stress of the above incident, the deceased committed suicide. On going through the entire records, I am of the view that proper investigation was conducted in this case twice and hence no purpose will be served in ordering re-investigation.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top