V.M. Thomas vs The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram-695001 and Others

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation Sri.P. Chandrasekhara Pilli. We have also gone through the final report filed by the State as per the direction of this Court on 23.7.2012 as well. It is an unfortunate situation, where the appellant, father of Sri.Thomas Mathew, who met with an unnatural death, is knocking at the doors of this Court again and again not being satisfied with the investigation done into the death of his son by the respondent State Police, i.e., CBCID Unit, Thiruvananthapuram.

The facts that led to the filing of the present Appeal are as under: On 16.8.2009, deceased Thomas Mathew, while working in Prince Jewellery shop at Thiruvananthapuram branch, fell unconscious and he was rushed to a private hospital, where he was declared dead.

According to learned counsel for the appellant, being a Gold Purchase Manager at Thiruvananthapuram branch of the Prince Jewellery, after the transfer of the deceased from Chennai, the owner of the shop is aware of the intricacies and confidential matters with which the deceased was entrusted with and the appellant strongly feels, something with regard to his duties as Gold Purchase Manager, has led to the unnatural death of the deceased.

As reveals from the material, on the fateful day, he was seen having lunch along with one of his colleagues, Sri.Praveen and after some time, he collapsed at his work place. One another colleague, Sri.Joy accompanied him to the hospital and later a case came to be registered in Crime No.738/2009 at Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the appellant, since the commencement of investigation itself, there was no proper and purposeful investigation taken up by the State Police in order to book the real culprits in the matter. According to him, in spite of his insistence and persuasion to entrust the investigation to CBI, there was no representation. Therefore, he had to approach this Court. After the declaration of death by the doctor concerned at the private hospital, as part of investigation, autopsy was conducted by the doctor. As no other external injury being found, the doctor opined that it could be a case of poisoning. Therefore, viscera was sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Laboratory. When no prima facie evidence is forthcoming from the external appearance and dissection of the deceased, the next recourse open to the doctor would be to see whether the death could be due to poisoning. Some material brought on record indicates that there is some difference of opinion with regard to the actual time of death of the deceased. It is well settled that there cannot be any precision so far as the exact time of death and it is always approximate. The expert to the best of his ability is expected to give such time of death based on the material brought to the notice of the expert. Therefore, this difference in time of death alone cannot persuade us to take a different view. The doctor has not opined that the death was due to the fracture of sternum. If the death was due to fracture of sternum and ribs, definitely, the direction of investigation would be altogether a different one. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigation could be entrusted with the Hurt and Homicide Wing of the Crime Branch CID Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation was also directed to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to be monitored by the Superintendent of Police of the Hurt and Homicide Wing of the Crime Branch CID Unit. Now the report submitted by the investigating officer gives details of the investigation done and so also the other materials forthcoming in the investigation, especially with regard to the visuals collected from the CCTV installed in the jewellery shop, where he was working. From the report, we note that initially one Sri.M.B.Riyas Raja, Sub Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station took up the investigation and he sent the dead body for postmortem, which came to be conducted on 17.8.2009 at Forensic Department, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Polygraph test was conducted on Sri.Praveen, who was a close associate of deceased Mathew at the relevant point of time, but no suspicious material is forthcoming and the polygraph test conducted on Sri.Praveen did not lead to any clue including involvement of Sri.Praveen in the death of Sri.Mathew.

Then the compact disc of the visuals is detailed at paragraph 4 of the report and proceeds at paragraph 5 regarding the actual routine of the deceased in the shop and then at paragraph 6 indicates the information collected by the investigating agency regarding the family problems especially financial position of the family which led to the depression of the deceased at the relevant point of time. The investigation is complete and it did not disclose the actual cause of death of the deceased so far, though the investigating agency has made every endeavour to get some clue leading to the actual cause of death of the deceased. About 80 witnesses were already examined. There is no conclusive proof leading to the actual cause of death pointing out the guilt of any one as contended by the appellant. After securing the procedural approval, the investigating officer would submit a report to the Magistrate concerned, who is seized of the matter. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation done in any particular direction or if there is exclusion of any person as an accused, in his opinion, who had to be arrayed as accused, it is always open to him to file a protest memo and then necessary application to implead other accused, who are not before the Court, if he thinks that intentionally some persons are excluded from being arrayed as accused. Paragraph 6 actually refers to the mental condition of the deceased on the date of death, which is collected through the investigation done by the investigating officer. This is a case where the investigation is done by the investigating agency, that too, a sub unit of Crime Branch by an officer not less than the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the guidance and supervision of the Superintendent of Police.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, there cannot be any relief sought in the Writ Appeal for handing over the matter to CBI for investigation suspecting the bona fides in the investigation done by the State Police, i.e., CBCID Unit, Thiruvananthapuram.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.