Bijoy P M vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.294 of 2023 of Town West Police Station, Thrissur. The investigation was completed in the aforesaid crime, and a final report has been filed, which is taken cognizance as C.C. No.99/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. The petitioner filed an application seeking further investigation as Crl.M.P. No.8176/2023 in the aforesaid crime. However, by order dated 06.10.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application after finding that there was no such scope for further investigation.

The incident that led to the crime has its genesis in petitioner’s love for canines and his regular feeding of stray dogs. Irked by the above conduct, on 04.03.2023, at around 9.15 pm, when the petitioner went out for a walk with his dogs, the accused wrongfully restrained and attacked him with weapons. Upon suffering serious injuries, including a fracture to his mandibles, petitioner rushed back to his house. The third accused followed him, trespassed into the compound and attempted to stab the defacto complainant’s wife with a steel knife. Meanwhile, the petitioner, fearing an attempt to murder, escaped from the scene. It is alleged that the entire incident was caught on CCTV camera.

Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that when the FIR was registered, the police purposely avoided that part of the statement of the defacto complainant regarding the attempt to murder. Even the offences under sections 326 and 308 of IPC were omitted in the FIR. When the final report was filed, though there was a reference that the accused had threatened the defacto complainant and his wife with a knife, neither sections 307 nor 308 of IPC were incorporated.

The learned counsel also submitted that from the manner in which the investigation was carried out and final report framed, there was no proper or fair investigation and hence, a re-investigation or atleast a further investigation is necessary.

Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that if there was any omission on the part of the investigating officer in including other offences, the learned Magistrate is certainly empowered to alter or add any other charges at the time of framing charge. It was also submitted that the apprehensions of the defacto complainant are without any basis and neither a re-investigation nor a further investigation is necessary.

I have considered the rival submissions.

Considering the nature of relief that is proposed to be granted, notice to the accused is dispensed with.

The CCTV footage of a part of the incident that occurred inside the compound of the petitioner's house was seized and the petitioner has produced the same. On viewing the said footage, this Court noticed that one of the accused was holding a knife in his hand and was threatening to stab the wife of the petitioner. Despite the availability of the CCTV footage, there is an omission to incorporate appropriate sections. This indicates that the investigation is not complete in all respects. The allegation of the defacto complainant that crucial statements given by him to the investigating officer were omitted assumes significance. The inclusion of those statements would have certainly resulted in charging the accused for the offence either under section 307 of IPC or at least under section 308 of the IPC.

On a perusal of the case diary, statements of the witnesses, and CCTV footage, it is clear that there are certain crucial omissions in the final report. A mere addition or alteration of charge by itself may not be sufficient in the circumstances. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that a further investigation is necessary.

Accordingly, I set aside Annexure A19 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur and direct a further investigation to be carried out into Crime No.294 of 2023 of the Town West Police Station, Thrissur at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.