Manoj Kumar Thakur vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7205 Kant

                           1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                       BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.296/2020

BETWEEN:
MANOJ KUMAR THAKUR
S/O LATE B.N. THAKUR
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION,
STATE JHARKHAND, R/O B-52,
HARMU HOUSING COLONY,
HARMU, RANCHI-JHARKHAND - 834 002
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PARAMESHWARA N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
   POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
   REPRESENTED BY
   THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER OF CCB
   SPECIAL INVESTIGATION,
   ENTIPETE, BANGALORE CITY
   REPRESENTED BY THE
   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA
   BANGALORE - 560 001.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: JAGADEESHA B.N.,
    ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
    SRI: CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
                                   2




      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.09.2019 PASSED BY
THE XLIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.125/2014 AND
ALLOW THE COMPLAINT/PROTEST PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.09.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

The complainant in CC No.125/2014 on the file of the

learned 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for

brevity), is impugning the order dated 21.09.2019 rejecting

the protest memo filed by him and accepting B-report filed by

the Investigating officer.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, one Prateek

Kumar Takur is the son of the petitioner herein and he was

studying 3rd Semester in Business Telecommunication at

Dayananda Sagar College, Bengaluru. The deceased was from

Ranchi, Jarkhand State. On fateful day, i.e., on 13.08.2009 at

about 11.45 a.m., the security guard in the college found him

falling from the top floor on the ground. Immediately, he was

shifted to the hospital. His father came to Bengaluru on

14.08.2009 and filed formal complaint suspecting the role of

an unseen hand in causing the death of his son, by pushing

him from the top floor of the college. An UDR No.35/2009

was registered in Kumarswamy Layout Police Station on the

basis of report submitted by S.Kumar, the employee of the

college in question. Inquest mahazar was conducted and the

postmortem examination was held. Initially, Kumarswamy

layout police conducted investigation. Later the investigation

was taken over by CID, Bengaluru and the final report was

filed on 21.10.2010, to the effect that it was not a homicidal

death but, it was either accidental or suicidal one.

3. The petitioner being the informant filed WP

No.28092/2013 before this Court seeking to quash the said

final report filed in UDR No.35/2009 and seeking fresh

investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the

CBI'). The said petition came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2013, quashing

the final report dated 21.10.2010 in UDR No.35/2009 and

directing the Director General of police to register the FIR on

the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner on

14.08.2009, and to entrust the investigation to an efficient

officer of rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However,

the prayer for referring the investigation to CBI was rejected.

It appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB,

Special Enquiry Squad, Bengaluru City took up investigation

and filed B-report on 22.08.2014 expressing the opinion

similore to that was expressed in the final report filed by the

earlier IO of CCB Bengaluru.

4. The petitioner filed WP No.59438/2014 before this

Court challenging the said B report and saught for fresh

investigation by CBI. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dismissed the petition vide order dated 01.10.2015, thereby

rejecting the claim of the petitioner for fresh investigation by

CBI and observing that this is not the forum to challenge the

B-report filed by the investigating officer. A liberty was

reserved in favor of the petitioner to urge similar grounds by

the petitioner before the learned Magistrate by filing the

Protest Memo and seeking further investigation under Section

173(8) of Cr.PC., if he chooses to do so. Accordingly, the

petitioner herein filed the Protest Memo before the Trial Court

requesting to reject the B-report and order for further

investigation exercising the power under Section 173(8) of

Cr.PC. The Trial Court considering the contention taken by the

petitioner in the light of the B-report, rejected the protest

memo and accepted the B-report.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

before this Court seeking to set aside the impugned order

passed by the Trial Court and to allow the protest petition by

him.

6. Heard Sri P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., learned Additional

State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Perused the

materials including the Trial Court records.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

contended that the revision petitioner suspected the

involvement of his relatives Prabhash Chand Jha, Prakash

Chand Jha and one Kiran Pinto, as they might be involved in

causing the death of the deceased. The Investigation Officer

never enquired the said suspected persons, nor conducted

any investigation to find out the truth in the suspicion

expressed by the complainant. Even though the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in WP No.28092/2013 observed many

inconsistencies in the report of Sagar Hospital regarding the

time of death, Investigating Officer has not bestowed his

attention in finding the reasons for such inconsistencies. The

Investigating Officer is not sure as to whether the deceased

was brought dead to the hospital or whether he was alive

when he was brought to the hospital and died while taking

treatment. It is also not clear as to who is the doctor, if at all

treated when he was brought injured. There is inconsistency

in the time of death also. The certificate issued by the Sagar

Hospital gives rise to serious doubt and it appears that the

hospital has made concerted efforts to conceal something.

Thereby, the real cause of death of the deceased is concealed.

There must be a strong reason for a hospital to do so. But the

Investigating Officer has not proceeded towards the right

direction in finding answers to all those questions. Even

according to the B-report, there were inconsistencies in the

statements of the witnesses as to whether the deceased had

fallen from 7th floor or from 4th floor of the building, to which

the Investigating Officer has not found any answer.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the college where

the incident had occurred, had CCTV cameras at each floor,

but strangely, as per the report of Investigating Officer, CCTV

cameras up to 4th floor recorded all the movements, but from

the top floor till the 4th floor, none of the CCTV cameras

were in working condition and therefore, the footages from

the said cameras could not be retrieved to find out the real

cause for the death.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that even

though, this Court in its earlier order referred to one of the

witness Shwetha, the Investigating Officer has never

questioned her. Moreover, this Court directed to hold a fresh

investigation by registering the FIR on the basis of the first

information lodged by the petitioner. Even though the FIR was

registered as directed, fresh investigation was never

conducted. But on the other hand, further investigation was

undertaken, which is against the direction issued by this

Court. There is inconsistency as to whether injured or

deceased was taken to Sagar hospital at Banashankari, where

the incident had taken place or whether he was shifted to

Sagar Hospital at Jayanagara, which is situated at a distance.

The documents that are available on record are so

inconsistent which falsifies one another. It is also not sure as

to who was the doctor on duty and who attended the injured

at first instance.

9. Learned counsel submitted that even though such

glaring inconsistencies were found in the investigation,

Investigating Officer proceeded to file the 'B' report.

Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submitted that the matter is to be referred to CBI for fresh

investigation as the revision petitioner thinks that such further

investigation would unearth the real culprit or at-least the real

cause for the death of the deceased. Accordingly, he prays for

allowing the revision petition.

10. Per contra, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor opposing the revision petition submitted that twice

the investigation was conducted. At first, the investigation

was conducted by CID and secondly, as per the directions of

this Court, by CCB. There is nothing on record to suspect the

credibility of the Investigating Officers. The revision petitioner

is also not suspecting their credibility. Even though the

revision petitioner suspects the role of his brother-in-laws by

name Prabhash Chand Jha and Prakash Chand Jha, his own

wife gives statement, stating that there is absolutely no

reason for such suspicion and she does not suspect the role of

her brothers in the incident. The revision petitioner who has

lost his son naturally suspects the role of several persons, but

there is no concrete reason for the same. However, this Court

while disposing of WP No.28092/2013, set aside the B-report

filed initially by CID and directed DGP to entrust the

investigation to an efficient officer of rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, FIR was registered and

the Special Investigation Agency i.e., CCB, Bengaluru

conducted investigation. There may be little inconsistencies in

the documents that are produced before the Investigating

Officer or in the statements of witnesses. Those

inconsistencies would not lead the Investigation Officer to

come to a conclusion that the death of the deceased was a

homicidal one. But the result of investigation was consistent

that it was either suicidal or accidental.

11. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further

submitted that the dates and events submitted before this

Court disclose that after the incident, injured was rushed to

the hospital and he was attended immediately. Inspite of

efforts made by the doctors, he could not be revived and he

was declared dead. The inquest mahazar and the postmortem

examination were conducted after arrival of the revision

petitioner. The revision petitioner has suspected all the

persons for one or the other reasons. But during investigation,

nothing was found prima-facie to further go deep into the

matter. Even though investigation was conducted twice, it

gave consistent results. The learned counsel submits that

when fresh investigation was undertaken as per the direction

of this Court by CCB, Bengaluru, there was reconstruction of

the scene of occurrence and the same was verified by the

experts in FSL. The FSL report was also obtained. The finding

of the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory,

Bengaluru is very clear that 'cause of death was consistent

with suicidal fall'. Simply because the petitioner who is the

father of the deceased suspects the role of several persons,

without there being prima-facie substance, the matter cannot

be again referred for further investigation or fresh

investigation.

12. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further

submits that similar prayer was made by the revision

petitioner seeking CBI investigation, when he filed WP

No.28092/2013 and the said prayer was consciously rejected

by this Court. Again when WP No.59438/2014 was filed, it

was prayed that the 'B' report filed by CCB is to be rejected

and fresh investigation by CBI is to be ordered. But the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court by assigning valid reasons

rejected the prayer for referring the matter to CBI and

directed the petitioner to go before the learned Magistrate and

to file the Protest Memo to permit the learned Magistrate to

consider the same in the light of the B-report. Accordingly,

the petitioner approached the Trial Court and filed Protest

Memo. The learned Magistrate considered all the materials on

record and passed the detailed order by assigning valid

reasons. It is categorically held that there are no latches on

the part of the Investigation Officer. Both the Investigating

Officers have conducted the investigation by examining all the

witnesses, which are necessary to find out the truth and

therefore, there are no reasons to reject the B-report.

Accordingly, the B-report was accepted, the protest memo

which was not having any basis, was rejected. There are no

reasons to interfere with the said order.

13. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further

submitted that the incident had occurred on 13.08.2009 and

14 years have lapsed, from the date of occurrence. Twice the

investigation was undertaken by two different Investigating

Officers with consistent results. Even if fresh investigation is

to be ordered, it may not give any result after long lapse of

14 years and that too, when there are absolutely no prima

facie materials to suspect the role of any person in causing

the death of the deceased. Under such circumstances, it will

be a futile attempt to order either for further investigation or

fresh investigation. Simply because, there are little

inconsistencies in the documents and the statements of

witnesses with regard to the fact as to whether the injured

was alive when he was shifted to the hospital or whether he

was brought dead, same cannot be a ground to held that it is

a homicidal death. The revision petitioner is not suspecting

any role played by the hospital or the doctors concerned.

Under such circumstances, there are no reasons to entertain

the petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of petition.

14. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

15. Unfortunately, the son of the petitioner by name

Prateek Kumar Takur who was studying in 3rd Semester of

Business Telecommunication at Dayananda Sagar College,

Bengaluru died in a suspicious manner on 13.08.2009. It is

stated that he had fallen from 7th floor of the building at

about 11.45 a.m. It is stated that one of the staff member by

name - Meenamma who was at the spot had also sustained

injury as Prateek Kumar Takur had fallen by her side. The

other staff of the college by name Robert, Sukumara Reddy,

Mahesh Reddy, Mallikarjun have immediately rushed to the

spot and shifted the injured to Sagar hospital, which is by the

side of Dayananda Sagar Engineering college. The injured was

treated by the doctors who were on duty and they tried to

revive him by CPR and by administering IV medications.

However, he was declared dead at 11.55 a.m.

16. As per one of the certificates, the injured was

brought dead at 11.55 a.m. with head injury and one

Dr.Murali Mohan who was the duty doctor handed over the

body at 4.50 p.m., but as per the medical certificate issued by

the very same hospital, the deceased died at 12.55 p.m. on

the date of incident and the doctor who certified the death of

the deceased was Dr.Nithin.S. As per the letter addressed by

Sagar hospital, the injured was administered with CPR as a

measure of life support treatment and other IV medications

were administered to revive him and Dr.Nithin S who is the

Chief Medical Officer along with Dr.Nandakumar and Dr.Vidya

Shanker have attended the injured. The certificates produced

before the Court, which are part of B-report filed by the

Investigating Officer, the injured was immediately shifted to

the hospital at Banashankari and the doctors on duty tried to

revive him by all possible means. However, the other

certificates states that he was brought dead to the hospital.

The time gap between the two certificates to state that

injured was rushed to the hospital, he was administered with

CPR and IV medications to revive him is very minimum.

17. The contentions of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner that as per wound certificate issued by the

Sagar hospital, he was brought dead and only marchery

service was provided to the deceased. Whereas, as per the

other certificate, he was administered CPR and IV

medications, may not detain me for a long time to suspect an

unseen hand either in screening a culprit or causing death of

the deceased. Even though there are inconsistencies in the

medical reports as to whether the injured was brought dead

to the hospital or he was alive and died thereafter, will not

take us anywhere as it is not the contention of the petitioner

that doctors who attended his son have played a foul play and

they are responsible either to screen somebody or to the

cause of his death.

18. The suspicious circumstances highlighted by the

petitioner are that his brother-in-laws Prabhash Chand Jha

and Prakash Chand Jha were having reasons to cause the

death of the deceased and their behavior at the time of

incident and immediately thereafter gave rise to reasonable

doubts. Moreover, just before the incident one Kiran Pinto had

called the deceased several times and therefore, the

petitioner suspects his role in the death of the deceased. The

suspicion expressed by the petitioner in this regard was also

considered by the Investigating Officer. The statements of the

petitioner and his wife were recorded. The wife of the

petitioner categorically stated that there is absolutely no basis

for suspecting the role of her brothers in the death of her son.

The suspicion expressed by the petitioner about the conduct

of his brother-in-laws may not be of much importance to go to

the extent of saying that they had been to the college, took

the deceased to 7th floor and pushed him from there. It is to

be noticed that the incident had taken place in the college

premises at about 11.45 a.m., the students and staff

members were there at the spot, who have suddenly noticed

falling of the injured and lying on the ground with blood injury

on the head.

19. It is pertinent to note that when fresh

investigation was directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, the Investigating Officer had reconstructed the crime

scene. The CCTV footage found in the 4th floor of the building

which captured the body falling down was verified. It is stated

that within 9 seconds after fall of the deceased, the observers

were rushed to the spot. It is also stated that steel railings to

the height of 3.2 feet were provided on each floor along with

parapet wall measuring 7 inches. Total height of the building

was about 80 feet. The pattern and the nature of injury found

on the dead body was considered and expert has given the

finding as under:

"Based on the simulated trials during the reconstruction of the crime scene, study of photographs, spot mahazar, PM reports and CCTV footages at the time of incident and the sequence of events are consistent with suicidal fall."

20. The Investigating Officer summoned Kiran Pinto

and one Rahul Pinto, with whom the deceased had

conversation on the date of incident. But their statements did

not give any result to interrogate them further. The statement

of the eye-witness - Meenamma who was at the spot and had

sustained injuries as the deceased fell on her, was also

recorded. The security guard and other staff members who

were at the scene of occurrence or at nearby places were also

interrogated. The Principal of the college and the staff

members concerned were also questioned as to why the CCTV

were not functional above 4th floor, at the time of incident. It

was found that the said CCTV cameras were not functioning

few days before the incident and they were repaired

subsequently. Several witnesses with whom the deceased was

having contact either personally or over phone were

questioned and their statements were recorded. But there is

no clue leading to a suspicion to contend that it was a

homicidal death. Moreover, FSL report issued by the expert on

the basis of reconstructed scene of occurrence and the

documents that were collected by the Investigating Officer at

the first instance are consistent with B-report filed by the

Investigating Officer.

21. Even though there were inconsistencies in the

medical records as stated above, they are not giving any

reasonable clue about any unseen hands of any person behind

the unfortunate incident. Many inconsistencies remain

unanswered. It is stated that both Dr.Nithin S and Dr.Murali

Manohar referred to in the medical records as doctors who

were on duty and attended the injured/deceased have gone

abroad. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could not

summon them for further investigation. When there are no

prima-facie material to suspect the role of any person in

causing the homicidal death of the deceased and moreover,

when there are many circumstances, documents, statement

of witnesses to support the finding of the Investigating Officer

that it may either suicidal or accidental death, I am of the

opinion that B-report is liable to be accepted.

22. Even though, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner seeks to hold fresh investigation, the further

investigation conducted by CCB police has not resulted in any

glaring or grave injustice. As per direction of this Court, the

FIR was registered on the basis of first information lodged by

the petitioner. There was interrogation of several witnesses

including the witnesses who were already questioned. There

was reconstruction of scene of occurrence, which was referred

to FSL expert, who gave his report that the same is consistent

with the cause of death as suicidal fall. There are absolutely

no suspicious circumstances which could lead to a prima facie

conclusion about any unseen hand for having played foul play

in the incident or in causing the death of the deceased. This

Court consistently rejected the prayer of the petitioner for CBI

investigation. The inconsistencies highlighted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the medical records also do not

call for further or fresh investigation by any agency. Under

such circumstances, the 'B' report submitted by the

Investigating Officer is liable to be accepted.

23. Even though, I can understand the feelings of an

unfortunate father in suspecting the role of an unseen hand in

causing the death of his son, bald suspicion and minor

discrepancies in the hospital records regarding the time of

death of the deceased, will not lead to a sufficient ground to

reject the B-report submitted by the Investigating Officer or

to accept the protest petition.

24. I have gone through the impugned order passed

by the trial Court. The learned Magistrate has taken into

consideration all the rival contentions and the materials that

are placed before the Court and after discussing at length,

formed an opinion that B-report submitted by the

Investigating Officer is liable to be accepted, while rejecting

the Protest Memo. I do not find any perversity or illegality in

the said order. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere

with the same.

25. In view of the discussions held above, I answer

the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

(ii) The order dated 21.09.2019 passed in CC

No.125/2014 on the file of the learned 44th Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.

Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the

Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BH