Divakaran vs State of Kerala and Others

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—Petitioner is the brother of one Sasidharan, who met with an unnatural death, under suspicious circumstances. The aforesaid Sasidharan had a paralytic stroke in January 2011 and he was therefore incapacitated even to move his limbs freely, is the case of the petitioner. However, Sasidharan was found hanging on 05.02.12 at his home, resting his paralysed body on his knees on the floor, with presence of profuse blood at the site. Those circumstances gave room to suspect that the death of Sasidharan was not a suicide, but a homicide, and the petitioner, entertained doubts on the complicity of wife of Sasidharan and her close relatives in his death. Crime registered over the death of Sasidharan after investigation has led to filing of a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate as if he had committed suicide. Petitioner has got serious objection to that report and also the conclusion formed by the Investigating agency thereof. He has filed the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash Ext. P1 report filed by the Investigating agency as aforesaid before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to hand over the investigation of the crime to a higher ranking officer of the Crime Branch to unearth the truth behind the homicidal death of Sasidharan. After hearing the counsel at length with reference to the materials tendered with the petition, I find the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy, if at all he has got objection to the Ext. P1 report filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concluding that the death of his brother Sasidharan is a suicide. It is open to him to seek the intervention of the Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint taking exception to Ext. P1 report as well in case he still entertains any justifiable suspicious ground over the death of his brother, to take appropriate proceedings for enquiry, investigation, etc over the matter. When such remedy is available to the petitioner it may not be proper and appropriate for this Court to sit in judgment over Ext. P1 report filed by the Investigating agency before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, that too only on the basis of the circumstance canvassed that Sasidharan being a paralytic could not have hung himself. That however is a matter to be gone into in case any further proceedings are taken as provided under law and appropriate orders are passed for further enquiry or investigation in the case.

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is closed.