Sivadasan vs The State of Kerala

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The petitioner, who is the father of deceased Rajeev. S., aged 24 years, C.R.P.F. Constable No. 941110993 of "D" Coy CRPF 34/BN, posted to Bhawan (Darbar Mata Vaishno Devi), Katra, Jammu, has preferred this original petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing respondents 6 and 7 to enquire into the matter highlighted in this original petition and Exts.P1 to P3 and launch appropriate criminal proceedings against the persons really involved if it was a case of murder. It is also prayed for a direction directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an enquiry into the mysterious cause of death of the deceased son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he got a telegram message from the Commandant, 34/BN CRPF, Katra on 23.8.1999. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had received another telegram on 21.8.1999. According to the petitioner, the contents of these two telegram messages are contrary in nature and the same generated doubt in the mind of the petitioner regarding the real cause of the death of his son, especially when the two telegrams are sent from the same office. According to the petitioner, the postmortem report, Ext.P3 reveals that it is a case of murder. The petitioner firmly believed that there is no reason for his son to commit suicide and therefore, according to the petitioner, it is a clear case of murder. According to the petitioner, after completing all formalities in Jammu, the body of the deceased son was brought at his residence on 22.8.1999 and buried at about 5.30 p.m. on that day.

It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has approached the District Collector, Kollam for investigation and for exhumation and getting done fresh postmortem of the buried dead body of the deceased. This Court, by order dated 16.9.1999, directed the Kottarakkara Police Station to register a crime and to conduct exhumation of the buried dead body of the deceased Rajeev and also the postmortem. Fourth respondent has filed a statement regarding the steps taken pursuant to the order passed by this Court and also produced postmortem certificate on 23.8.1999 and also produced the statement given by Dr. P.Rema, Professor and Police Surgeon, Forensic Science and Medicines, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, who was one of the Doctors who conducted the postmortem. The above expert opinion shows that the death was due to forearm injuries.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. The following facts are revealed from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7. On 20.8.1999, Constable Rajeev. S. was on duty at Gate No. 2 Bhawan upto 2100 hrs and after completion of his duty, he returned to his barrack and watched T.V. for sometime in the retiring room. Thus, he was present there upto 2330 hrs. and after that, he went to meet one Constable Rajan at about 2400 hrs. He woke him up and requested him to accompany him for a darshan in the temple. But, Constable Rajan refused the same as he was tired. Thereafter, the deceased Rajeev went alone for darshan and he happened to meet the poojari outside the main cave and the Poojari asked him why he came at that odd hour and directed him to come in the morning for darshan. But the deceased Rajeev replied to the poojari "MATA KE DARSHAN JAB HO KARLENA CHAHIYE, KAL KISNE DEKHA HAI" and then he had his darshan and come back to his room and woke up one Constable Mangleshwar Tiwari of E/34 and told him that his platoon commander was calling him. Accordingly, the said constable went to meet the commander, but returned as the commander was not available there. While the said Constable returned back and as he was approaching his room, he heard a sound of gunshot fire at a distance of 15 yards from his room. He suddenly rushed to the room and found that Constable S.Rajeev was lying on the floor in an injured condition. Blood was oozing out from his head and neck. He found that nobody was there in the room. The line sentry on duty, Constable Ram Vilas Sharma also reached the spot immediately. Thereafter first aid was given to the injured and he was rushed to Sagri Suri Hospital at Sanjhi Chaat where he was attended by doctor at Sanjhi Suri Hospital and Medical Inspection Room at Adh Kumari enroute and further shifted to Katra Hospital and at about 0430 hrs he was declared dead by the Medical Officer at Katra Hospital. On the same night on 21.8.1999, at about 0130 hrs., F.I.R. No. 12/1999 u/s 309 Cr.P.C. was lodged at the Police Station, Bhawan. Ext.R7(a) is the F.I.R.

The counter affidavit further disclosed that the Company Commander carried out check of all rifles and ammunition of the Coy personnel posted at Bhawan. Rifles of both the constables who were residing in his room were also checked and found that neither any shortage of ammunition noticed nor any round fired from their rifles.

The counter affidavit also disclosed that court of inquiry was ordered on the same day and Shri.Manidhar Jha, 2 I/C appointed as Presiding Officer of the Board to enquire into the circumstances under which Constable Rajeev. S. died. Ext.R7(b) is the enquiry report which would show that the death of Constable S.Rajeev was a clear case of suicide and noone involved directly or indirectly in the said incident. A team of three doctors of PHC, Katra conducted the postmortem of S.Rajeev as evidenced by Ext.P2 produced in this writ petition. The court of enquiry also obtained opinion of C.R.P.F. experts about the nature of the gunshot injuries. Ext.R7(c) is the report furnished by Shri. B.S. Gujaral. According to the respondents, as per Ext.R7 (b),(c) and Ext.P3 postmortem report, it was a case of suicide. The counter affidavit also mentioned about the original of the telegram which was sent to the petitioner. On the basis of the materials available on record, especially the letter addressed by the deceased to his brother Pradeep, it is stated that he had sent a draft of Rs. 8500/-, but the fact need not be revealed to his father. In the letter, it is also stated that he had already pledged one gold chain and the same has to be re-deemed. Only later, it is also stated that the amount meant to clear LIC premium had been given to his brother Shajahan and he has to bear the complete responsibility of his family. On the basis of the said letter, according to respondents 6 and 7, this kind of reaction shows that the relationship between the deceased and his family is not a cordial one and he had some unpleasant experience which would show the mental position of the deceased.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

The alleged incident had taken place on 21.8.1999. The available materials would show that respondents 6 and 7 had taken timely action in pursuance of the incident. According to the respondent, the materials referred would show that it is a clear case of suicide. The court of enquiry was conducted and report of the same is made available to me and I perused the same carefully. Nothing brought on record to suspect that it is a case of murder. It is also brought to my notice that immediately on hearing the gunshot fire, Constable Mangaleshwar Tiwari rushed to the room where the deceased was found lying and he had not noticed the presence of any other person. Constable Ram Vilas Sarma also reached the spot immediately. The company commandant carried out check of all rifles and ammunitions of the Coy Personnel posted at Bhawan and such enquiry also disclosed that rifles of both the constables who were residing in his room were checked and found that neither any shortage of ammunitions noticed nor any round fired from their rifles.

The only point stressed by the counsel for the petitioner is about certain mistake that occurred in two telegrams received by the petitioner from the respondent. Exts.P1 and P2 are those telegrams. Admittedly, both Exts.P1 and P2 are sent on same date and from same office. It is true that the words used are different and there is also some mistake. In reply to the above averment, in the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of respondents 6 and 7, it is stated in para 10 that only one telegram had been sen from the office and the copy of the office copy of the said telegram is produced along with the counter as Ext.R7(d) which is exactly same as that of Ext.P1. According to the respondents, the telegraph authority served copy on the petitioner twice and both the copies contain certain grammatical mistakes. On a perusal of Ext.R7(d), it can be seen that the mistake contained in Exts.P1 and P2 are not seen in Ext.R7(d). As the respondents have admitted that they have sent only Ext.R7(d) telegram and the telegraph authority has served copy of Ext.R7(d) mistakenly on twice, no adverse inference can be arrived in the absence of any satisfactory evidence or materials. There is nothing to disbelieve Ext.R7(d). Simply for the reason that the petitioner had received two telegrams like Exts.P1 and P2 and when the same has been adequately explained by producing Ext.R7(d), it cannot be believed for a moment that Exts.R7(a),(b) and (c) are false and what stated in the counter affidavit of respondents 6 and 7 are incorrect.

In the absence of any other materials which would suggest even to suspect a case of homicide, this Court has to go by the materials produced by the respondents. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.