Balaram K vs The State Police Chief
2022 Latest Caselaw 8740 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
                 TH
 THURSDAY, THE 7    DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                WP(CRL.) NO. 553 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

         BALARAM K.,
         AGED 58 YEARS
         S/O. MADHAVAN, HOUSE NO. 41, NANDANAM, SANTHI
         NAGAR, 4TH LANE, KALLEKULANGARA P.O, PALAKKAD
         678 009.
         BY ADV JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
         POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010.
    2    THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
         OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, YAKKARA
         ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD 678 014.
    3    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
         HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD 678
         009.


         ADV SUDEER GOPALAKRISHNAN,PP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(Crl)No. 553 of 2022

                                     -:   2     :-

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the

following reliefs:

"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to ensure a proper, speedy and effective de-novo investigation in Crime No.707/2021 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad, after reopening the same and after incorporating the relevant sections of Indian Penal Code.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an effective and detailed investigation into the suicide death of petitioner's on Susmith Krishnan or by a superior police officer, other than 3 rd respondent, under the supervision of the 2 nd respondent with the use of modern investigation technology and the scientific method.

iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and

iv) Grant the cost of this writ petition."

2. The petitioner's grievance is that no proper investigation

was conducted by the 3rd respondent in Crime No.707/2021 of

Hemambika Nagar Police Station, which was registered in

connection with the death of his elder son named Susmith

Krishnan, aged 24 years on 02/11/2021. The deceased was an

Engineering graduate working in an Information Technology firm

based in Singapore. He was found dead in his room on

02/11/2021. The crime was registered in connection with the WP(Crl)No. 553 of 2022

-: 3 :-

above, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. After completing the

investigation, Ext.P3 report was submitted by the 3rd respondent,

stating that further action dropped. This writ petition is presented

in such circumstances, seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

2. Heard Sri. James Abraham (Vilayakattu), the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the

learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration, in

response to the averments contained in the writ petition, a

statement was filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader on

behalf of the 3rd respondent. The details of the investigation

conducted by police are mentioned in the said statement and

paragraph 8 thereof reads as follows:

"8. It is also submitted that while preparing the scene mahassar the investigation officer has examined his electronic device such as Laptops and mobile phone. But all of his articles are password protected. The family members of the deceased have no idea about the password of his device. Hence the investigation officer not seized the items for sending these kind of articles to forensic examination as the password is very inevitable for forensic examination."

4. It is discernible from the contents of the

aforementioned paragraph that, even though electronic devices WP(Crl)No. 553 of 2022

-: 4 :-

such as laptops and mobile phones are necessary materials that

ought to have been examined, no attempt is seen made by the

Investigation Officer to scrutinise the contents of the same. The

only explanation offered is that those articles are password

protected, and the deceased's family members have no idea about

the password. However, the reasoning mentioned in the said

statement is unsustainable. There are ample resources and

techniques available to verify the contents of such electronic

devices, even if the same is protected by a password. Admittedly,

the Investigation Officer took no such steps while conducting the

investigation. Therefore, I find some force in the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that a proper investigation into

the matter has not been conducted. Consequently, it is only

appropriate that the investigation into the matter is re-opened and

further investigation conducted, particularly by taking measures to

examine the contents of the laptops and mobile phones of the

deceased.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner

voiced an apprehension that an effective further investigation may

not be possible at the instance of the 3 rd respondent. However, I WP(Crl)No. 553 of 2022

-: 5 :-

am of the view that the said apprehension can be addressed by

directing the 2nd respondent to supervise the investigation and

verify the further reports before filing them before the Court.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take necessary steps for

reopening the investigation of Crime No.707/2021 of Hemambika

Nagar Police Station and conduct further investigation in tune with

the observations made in this judgment. As mentioned above, the

further investigation conducted by the 3rd respondent shall be

verified and supervised by the 2 nd respondent. Further, the reports

shall be submitted before the court only after scrutiny of the same

made by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd and 3rd respondents shall

investigate with the aid of cyber experts available in the

Department or from outside.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk WP(Crl)No. 553 of 2022

-: 6 :-

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 553/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 707/2021 DATED 3.11.2021 ALONG WITH STATEMENT GIVEN BY MRIDUL KRISHNAN.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTMERTEM CERTIFICATE DATED 3.11.2021 ISSUED DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 7.12.2021 IN FIR NO. 707/174 ALONG WITH STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE POLICE.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.2021 UNDER RTI ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DETAILS DATED 6.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION.