M. Subramaniyan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give suitable orders to the

CB CID to investigate the reasons for the death of the petitioner''s son namely Raja Muthuramalingam alias Muthuramalingam in the Government

Hospital a Tirunelveli and the facts and circumstances under which he had sustained injuries leading to his death and submit the report to this

Hon''ble Court for further action including the direction for damages to the petitioner.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is retired from the post of Executive engineer in

Public Works Department and his son was a recognised contractor of Thenthirupeai Panchayat Union in Thiruchendur Taluk and that he was

Secretary of ADMK MGR Youth Wing; that on 22.4.1999 at about 11.00 P.M., the petitioner received a call from his son that he would come

and meet him at Chennai; that when he was expecting his arrival, he came to know that the petitioner''s son was admitted in the hospital, since he

was suffering from severe head injuries ; that however, on 27.4.1999, the petitioner'' s son died; that the 4th respondent gave a complaint on

23.4.1999 itself, but the 3rd respondent registered a case after the death of his son on 27.4.1999;that his son was alright even on 22.4.1999 and

he phoned up at 11.00 P.M and that his son''s death is suspicious; On such averments, the petitioner would pray to the relief extract supra.

3.In the counter filed in support of the writ petition, the respondents would submit that the son of the petitioner fell down from the wall of the

residence of one Palanisamy and sustained injury on the back of his head; that the Sub-Inspector, Temple Police Station on receipt of the

intimation from the Government Hospital, Tiruchendur went to the Government Hospital Tiruchendur and saw the injured in an unconscious stage;

that the 3rd respondent recorded the statement from Respondent 4 about the fall of the injured and made entry in the Police Station General Diary

about the incident on 23.4.99 itself; that a case has been registered in Cr.No.72/99 u/s 174 Cr.P.C.;that the third respondent being the

investigation officer, he conducted inquest and took investigation; that the investigation revealed that the deceased was a womeniser and he had

also committed theft and a case was registered in Cr.No.1209/94 u/s 379 IPC read with 511 IPC; that on the date of occurrence, while he was

climbing on the house wall with intent to commit theft or intent to see the scene of husband and wife in their bed in a drunken state and fell down

and sustained severe injury on the back of his head; that he was not admitted in the hospital by the police department as alleged by the petitioner;

that the said deceased was punished under Goondas Act; that his name is in the Rowdy list of Alwartghirunagari Police Station; that the said

deceased had indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquility he had been detained under the Goondas Act in

Alwarthirunagari Police Crime No.193/92 u/s 307 IPC and (2)n 105/96 u/s 324 IPC Cr.No. 169/96 u/s 448, 353,294(b) 506(ii) IPC

Cr.No.157/97 u/s 323,324,336 IPV cr.No.280/97 u/s 294(b) 506(ii) 307 IPC read with 3,4 of I.E. Act ;that since the injured continued to be in

unconscious state, he had been referred to the Tirunelveli Medical College, Palayamkottai; that inspite of repeated and effective treatment, the

injured succumbed to the injury sustained on 27.2.1999;that soon after getting the death intimation, the Sub-Inspector registered a case in

Tiruchendur Temple PS.

4.Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, causing production of all the relevant records connecting the whole

affair leading to the death of the son of the petitioner viz. Raja Muthuramalingam @ Muthuramalingam would point out that there is absolutely

nothing fishy in the death of the deceased; that it was a natural fall from the wall in a drunken mood which caused the injuries on the head of the

deceased and even on the part of the petitioner till date, he is not able to attribute any motive to any individual or the respondents herein to be the

cause of the injuries nor is it the case of the petitioner that such injuries had been caused in the custody. Further more from the accident register it

comes to be known that the death was due to the fall from the wall as it had been given by the 4th respondent to the Doctor; that from the medical

report, it is revealed that at the time of the accident, the deceased was under the influence of intoxication; that many cases have been registered

against the petitioner''s son in the past including one invoking the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 and therefore the learned Government Advocate

would submit that absolutely there is no reason to comply with the request of the petitioner in referring the case to be investigated into by the

CBCID when there is no lapses in the investigation already held nor is it the case of the petitioner that the investigation as held and concluded in the

causing of the death of the son of the petitioner is perfunctory and therefore the learned Government Advocate would conclude that in all respects

the above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed.

5.On the part of the petitioner, the learned counsel would lay emphasis the same old points raised in the petition at the time of filing of the same,

without showing anything anew to substantiate the claim of the suspicious ground under which they could have been caused otherwise, than in the

manner it was decided by the jurisdiction police, the third respondent herein.

6.In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what

comes to be known is that it is a case of the petitioner''s son sustaining injuries particularly in the head and dying in suspicious circumstances which

have not been cleared on the part of the respondents and therefore not being satisfied with the investigation conducted on his son sustaining injuries

leading to his consequential death in the hospital, the petitioner has come forward to pray for the relief of directing respondents 1 and 2 to pass

suitable orders and handing over the investigation with the CBCID for the further investigation and decision to be arrived at on the death of the

petitioner''s deceased son.

7.Be that as it may, now the point for consideration is whether there is something fishy in the death of the son of the petitioner than what it is

revealed in the investigation held by the third respondent jurisdiction police concluding that it was a natural death which caused the injuries to the

person of the deceased, ultimately causing his death in the hospital, not only the fourth respondent herein would reveal that the deceased has fallen

from the wall and sustained the injuries as it is seen from the accident register, the medical report would further reveal that at the time of admission,

he was under the under the influence of intoxication and it is relevant to consider that it is the 4th respondent who had admitted him in the hospital

and without having witnessed the occurrence of the deceased, falling from the wall, the 4th respondent had no reason to give such a statement

before the medical officer so as to put entries into the accident register to the said effect that the cause of the injury was due to the fall from the

wall. It is relevant for consideration at this juncture that on going through the accident register, the police never came into picture and hence there is

reason to conclude the entries effected therein being genuine. Further the medical report showing that he was found to be under the influence of

intoxication at the time of admission would also serve such supporting evidence to the fall of the deceased from the wall so as to sustain such

injuries.

8.It is not only that no other facts contrary to this conclusion has either been brought forth nor even any motive attributed to the jurisdiction police

for having held a perfunctory investigation for any reason whatsoever and therefore the above writ petition filed under such suspicion entertained in

the death of the son of the petitioner has no basis and it has to be concluded that the reasons assigned on the part of the third respondent is not

only reasonable, but also acceptable in nature and therefore the question of referring the case to CBCID does not at all arise in the case in hand.

9.There is no pith or substance in the writ petition so as to be further gone into and it is only proper to give a quietus to the suspicion created by the

petitioner in the writ petition which is without any basis or material and therefore the only conclusion that could be arrived at in these circumstances

is to dismiss the writ petition, but without costs.

10.In result,

(i) the above writ petition is without merit and the same is dismissed as such;

(ii) However, there shall be no order as to costs.