BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL RC(MD)No.1002 of 2025 R.Arunagiri ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep through, The Inspector of Police, Srivillipudur Railway Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No. 31/2013) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2024 dated 10.07.2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivillipudur, Virudhunagar District and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Revision Case arises from the order dated 10.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 35 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking further investigation into the death of one Mariappan, was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioner, being aggrieved by the refusal to direct further investigation, contends that the earlier investigation, and even the subsequent “further investigation” previously ordered in Crl.M.P. No.2566 of 2019, were perfunctory, incomplete, and failed to unravel the real cause of death, which, according to him, was suspicious and possibly connected with election-related motives.

Facts of the prosecution case:

3. The genesis of the case is an occurrence dated 14.06.2013, when the body of Mariappan was found on a railway track within the limits of the Railway Police Station. Based on the information received, the Railway Police registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973, for unnatural death. The body was forwarded for post-mortem examination, and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161(3)

Cr.P.C., 1973.

4. The post-mortem report suggested that the deceased had died due to decapitation caused by a train passing over his head. Based on the said finding, the respondent police concluded that it was a case of suicide and filed a final report to that effect.

5. The petitioner, father of the deceased, disputed the conclusion of suicide. He contended that the deceased had no family problems or health problems that could have driven him to suicide. The train involved in the alleged suicide was never identified, and the time of occurrence was not properly determined. The scene of occurrence did not show any trace of blood stains or other corroborative evidence suggesting impact by a moving train. There were suspicious injuries on the body, some of which appeared to have occurred prior to death. The call history of the deceased was never examined. The date of the alleged suicide coincided with the declaration of local election results on 13.06.2016, giving rise to a suspicion of a political motive behind the death. He, therefore, filed Crl.M.P. No.2566 of 2019 under Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 21.01.2020, directing further investigation.

6. Pursuant to the said direction, a further investigation report was filed in Crl.M.P. No.895 of 2019, reiterating that the deceased, being mentally depressed, had committed suicide by lying on the railway track. The report concluded that the post-mortem injuries corroborated this theory.

7. Dissatisfied with the above, the petitioner again filed the present petition in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court, contending that the previous further investigation was incomplete and failed to examine crucial witnesses, namely, Paramasivam, Sankarraman, and Muthulakshmi, and also omitted verification of call details, photographic evidence, and train records.

Gist of the impugned order:

8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition on 10.07.20