Karuppaiah vs State

Mrs. S. Vimala, J.—"In safeguarding our freedoms the police plays a vital role. Society for its defence needs a well led, well trained, and well disciplined force of police whom it can trust; and though of them to be able to prevent crime before it happens or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused to justice." - Lord Denning in his book "Due Process of Law."

This is a case where the victim of crime was disbelieved and witnesses of crime were believed without any basis and thereby serious head injuries caused using a deadly weapon has been concluded to be injury caused on account of Fits and thus the case of the victim of crime came to be closed as unproved.

On this ground, the petitioner seeks transfer of the investigation in Cr. No.207 of 2015, dated 20.06.2015 on the file of the second respondent to the file of the third respondent for fair investigation and for filing final report in accordance with law.

On intimation from Pudukottai Government Hospital, the Sub Inspector of Police (training) went to the Hospital, and found that the injured Rengasamy was in an unconscious state. Therefore, he obtained statement from his father Karuppiah and registered a case in Crime No.207 of 2015 under Section 448 and 324 I.P.C.

The sum and substance of the complaint is that Karuppiah and Rengasamy were at home on 19.06.2015 at 3.30 p.m.; at that time, his brother''s son Selvaraj, sons of Selvaraj, namely, Ganesan and Meiyar @ Ilayaraja entered into the house of him; Ganesan and Meiyar @ Ilayaraja caught hold of the hands of Rengasamy and at that time, Selvaraj caused head injury to his son Rengasamy by using aruval; immediately, through 108 ambulance the injured was taken to Pudukottai Government Hospital. This is the alleged statement said to have been given by the father of the injured.

Later on, he has given a representation dated 21.06.2015 to all concerned police officials alleging that he is aged 75; his wife aged 73; both of them are unlettered and unwise on account of lack of wordily knowledge; his brother Meiyar died; there had been persistent problem between him and his brother; on account of that there had been frequent quarrels and several cases have been registered against Selvaraj; on 17.06.2015, Selvaraj and his sons trespassed into his house and caused damage to the house hold articles and in respect of the same, he lodged a complaint on 18.06.2015 at Vellanur Police Station; in connection with the same, Selvaraj was asked to attend the police station on 19.06.2015 at 5.00 p.m.; this was the grudge for Selvaraj against the petitioner''s son to intend to cause death and accordingly caused deadly grievous injuries.

It is further alleged that on 19.06.2015, at about 3.30 p.m. when the disabled son Rengasamy was at home and while Karuppiah and his wife were cooking near the house, they heard a loud cry from Rengasamy seeking help and when they entered into the house they saw Selvaraj causing head injury by using aruval and the other two accused persons viz., Ganesan and Ilayaraja catching hold of hands and legs and kicking him over the stomach also.

The allegation against the Police Officials is that on 20.06.2015, the police officials from Thirukokaranam police station took him to the police station and compelled him to give a statement as narrated by them and he was put to torture from 7.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. With these allegations, representation has been given on 21.06.2015.

Alleging that the second respondent has been supporting only the accused persons and pointing out that not even a case has been registered either under Section 326 IPC, or 307, but only under Section 324 IPC, further investigation by a different agency viz., the third respondent/CBCID is sought for.

Photographs are filed to show the nature of injury and the part of the body affected. As directed by this Court, CD file was produced. Perusal of the CD file would reveal that statement of the injured Rengasamy and his father Karuppiah has been recorded, wherein those two witnesses have reiterated the allegations made in the complaint itself. Statement of witnesses Palanisamy, Karuppiah and Rengasamy all belonging to the same village, have been recorded in which they have alleged that on account of Fits, the injured Rengasamy fell down with the back of the head facing the floor. Statement of two more witnesses has been recorded to speak about the preparation of observation Mahazar by the Investigating Officer. From the perusal of the observation Mahazar, it appears that the Investigating Officer did not realize the importance of visiting the crime of scene forthwith, so that the valuable evidence specific to the scene of crime is not lost, but in this case the Investingating Officer visited the scene of crime not on the same day, but on the next day.

With this, investigation has been concluded and final report has been made ready. The Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the injured has sustained injury only on account of Fits and a false case has been filed on account of previous enmity,The case has been closed as mistake of fact on 10.08.2015 (R.C. No.5 of 2015)

What is the basis of arriving at such conclusion? Is the conclusion supported by medical evidence? Is the conclusion supported by truth/facts?

Perusal of the CD file would reveal that the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the Doctor. The Accident Register copy or wound certificate has not been obtained. The nature of the injury, the time at which the manner in which, the injured could have sustained injury has not been ascertained. The case sheet available with Hospital would provide the complete solution to that question as to whether the injured sustained injury on account of Fits or on account of head injuries caused by aruval. The nature of treatment given would furnish unpolluted guidance to the Investigating Officer to find out the truth.

The nature of treatment given to the injured would have thrown light on the aspect, whether the injury could have been sustained on account of Fits as alleged by the witnesses or it was caused purely on account of use of deadly weapons. Even this basic aspect has not been investigated into.

The cursory way in which the investigation has been done in a case where the victim has sustained serious head injury has to be deprecated.

This Court has seen several cases where a case under Section 307 IPC has been registered even in cases where the accused casually and verbally is stated to have used the language (unnai kollamal vidamatten) saying that he would not leave the opponent unkilled.

This is a case where just two days prior to the occurrence, the accused persons are alleged to have ransacked the house of the injured in respect of which there had been a complaint and the Police did not choose to look into the motive for the occurrence. Just because, they are rustic villagers, not knowing the nuances of law, the head injury sustained by the injured should not be lightly discarded thereby denying access to justice to them.

The object of investigation is to discover the truth. Section 2(h) Cr.P.C. defines the term "investigation" as under:

"Investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the collection of evidence conducted by a Police Officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate), who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf".

Investigation starts after the Police Officer receives information in regard to an offence and it consists of the following steps:

(1) Proceeding to the spot;

(2) Ascertainment of the facts and the circumstances of the case;

(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;

(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of;

(i) the examination of various persons including the accused and recording their statements, if the investigating officer thinks it necessary;

(ii) the search of places, seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the time of the trial; and

(5) Formation of opinion as to whether it is a fit case for the accused to be sent up for trial and, if so taking steps to file charge-sheet.

The word "investigate" used in Section 157 of the Evidence Act is not to be understood in the narrow sense in which the word is used in the Criminal Procedure Code. It must carry its ordinary dictionary meaning in the sense of ascertainment of facts, shifting of materials and search for relevant data.

17.1. The relevant provisions as to investigation in the Code of Criminal Procedure can be found in Section 2(h) (Definition of the term ''investigation''), 4(1) and (2) (Procedure to be adopted for investigation of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other law), 36 (Power of superior officers of police to investigate an offence), 41 to 60 (Provisions of arrest during investigation), 82 to 90 (Provisions as to proclamation and attachment), 91 to 105 (Provisions of search and seizure during investigation), 154 (Investigation of a cognisable offence), 155 (Investigation of non cognisable offences), 156 (Police Officers power to investigate a cognisable case, This section also deals with the power of the Magistrate to order for investigation, 157 (Procedure for investigation), 158 (Submission of report of investigation through superior officer of police and transmission of such report to the Magistrate), 159 (Power of the Magistrate to hold investigation and or preliminary inquiry), 160 (Police Officers powers to require attendance of witnesses for the purpose of investigation, 161 (Examination of witnesses by police during investigation), 162 (Use of statements recorded by the investigating officer during investigation in evidence during trial), 163 (Police officer should not offer or make or cause to be offered or made to the witnesses to be examined by him during investigation), 164 (Recording of confession of accused and statements of witnesses), 165 (Issue of search warrant for the purposes of investigation, procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours), 168 (Report of investigation by subordinate Police Officers), 169 (Release of accused when evidence is deficient), 170 (Provision of sending the case to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient), 171 and 172 (Diary of proceedings in investigation), 173 (Submission of charge-sheet of final report on completion of investigation), 173(8) (Provision for further investigation), 436 to 450 (Provision as to bail and bail bonds), 457 (Disposal of case property during investigation), 461(b) (About the irregularity as to order of investigation passed by a Magistrate who is not authorised to pass such order), 465 (Effect of error, omission or irregularity in investigation, and 482 (Quashing of Investigation) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Thus is the power of Police to investigate is the widest. The investigation should be impartial. The Investigating Officer should rule out the possibility of fabrication. Once the investigation is found to be reckless and unfair and it casts shadows upon the statement of witnesses and when both the statements remain untested and the Investigating Officer chooses to accept one set of statement without even taking proper steps to find out which can be true, then the final report based on faulty investigation should be set aside.

This Court directed the respondent to produce the Accident Register Copy, which has been produced. The statement before the Doctor is that it is a case of alleged assault by three known persons using Aruval at 03:30p.m. at the residence. One can expect that the patient will not tell lies to the Doctor with regard to the reason for sustaining the injury, because it is bound to reflect on the line of treatment and in turn on the life itself. May be, with regard to how it happened, the witnesses may tell the truth or may not tell the truth. Therefore, without examining the Doctor and without examining the medical records, the conclusion that the injury was on account of Fits is highly unacceptable and the biased statement of the Investigating Officer should be set aside.

The Investigating Officer did not have a mind even to register the First Information Report in appropriate sections:

Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means)

Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt)

Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and

Section 307 (Attempt to murder).

20.1. But this case has been registered only under Section 324 IPC. The injuries were found to be on the head, starting from forehead extending beyond mid-head and also extending up-to the left ear on the left hand side. From the nature of injury and from the nature of weapon used, the case should have been registered under Section 307 IPC, but it is not done so. Under such circumstances, transfer of investigation has become unavoidable.

In the result, the petition is allowed transferring the investigation from the 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent is directed to file a final report after completing the investigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.