AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Selvam, J.—The Petitioner, a wife who has lost her husband owing to an incident that occurred at about 08.30 p.m. on 03.05.2008 when he was set upon and injured severely, has now moved this revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in unnumbered petition in C.E. No. 4986 of 2010 in S.C. No. 100 of 2008, dated 10.03.2010, seeking further investigation u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure She earlier had moved this Court by way of Crl. O.P. No. 9247 of 2008 for the same relief and this Court had disposed of such petition "with liberty to approach the concerned Court by way of filing a petition u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation." The Sessions Court has dismissed the petition moved before it as not maintainable. Without being by technicalities and the prime concern of this Court would be to render justice.
The grievance of the Petitioner is well spelt out in her affidavit moved before the Sessions Court. The same is reproduced hereunder:
2.1. I am the Petitioner herein. I am the wife of deceased Vijayan, the victim in S.C. No. 100/2008 and as such I am well acquainted with the facts stated hereunder.
2.2. My husband deceased Vijayan was working in the Southern Railway and living with my minor daughter in the above address. My old aged mother-in-law is also living with us.
2.3. On 03.05.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. when my husband Vijayan was returning to home after his work near Kalvarambu Junction one Antony Selvam son of Maria Sebastian and one Pankiraj son of Antony have unlawfully restrained my husband, quarrelled with him using filthy words, asked him why he was not invited for my daughter''s puberty function. Soon after that Antony Selvam brutally attacked my husband with iron rod on his face, abdomen, and other parts, caused severe bodily injuries. The said Pankiraj was along with Antony Selvam abetted the incident and supported him. At that time I was on my way towards the hotel to buy idles for my aged mother-in-law and at the spot and saw the occurrence and I raised alarm to rescue my husband. On seeing my presence at the spot, the accused persons ran away after threatening me with dire consequences. My husband was lying unconscious with bleeding fatal injuries. The incident was also witnessed by Francis Moni, Thangam @ Maria John Thomas and Ammal wife of Thanga Nadar.
2.4. Immediately myself and the eye witnesses Francis @ Moni and Thangam @ Maria John Thomas have taken my husband to the nearby Prakash Hospital, Villukury, for treatment. After the first aid the doctor advised me for further better treatment and in with that timely advice we have immediately removed and admitted my husband in the Thilaga Ram Hospital at Nagercoil and recorded the unconscious state of my husband and taken down my statement. At that time I have given a clear statement about the incident and I narrated very clearly that the assailants Anthony Selvam and Pankiraj are the two persons, among them Anthony Selvam has caused the murderous attack with deadly weapon with the support of Pankiraj. And also it was clearly given in statement that the incident was witnessed by Francis @ Moni and Thangam @ Maria John Thomas and Ammal wife of Thanga Nadar. Taking advantage of my husband is very serious condition I was made to believe by the Head Constable that he has recorded the statement in the correct version I have given. Taking advantage of the tense situation the constable did his work in a hurried manner did not allow me to read the same and obtained my signature in the statement which he has recorded on his own fashion. In spite of my clear statement with reference to the incident and the eye witnesses an FIR was registered in Cr. No. 346 of 2008 only u/s 294(B), 341 and 323 of IPC against the said Anthony Selvam alone.
2.5. I was really shocked and surprised to note that the FIR was not registered on the basis of the statement given by me on 03.05.2008 at Thilaga Ram Hospital, Nagercoil. As a matter of fact, I made complaint against two persons including the Pankiraj son of Anthony who has also wrongly restrained my husband along with Anthony Selvam and supported him to achieve his illegal object of causing the heinous crime of inflicting blood injuries with deadly weapon with an ultimate intention by committing murder. The Head Constable has suppressed many facts while reducing my oral complaint, thereby enabled to help the accused. The Head Constable who has got a first hand information with reference to the injuries sustained on the body of my husband ought to have at least registered the FIR with the correct provisions under Indian Penal Code. The commission to register the FIR u/s 307 IPC itself would prima facie make it clear that the Head Constable has deliberately recorded a false statement or a distorted version from may original statement with an ulterior motive to support the culprits. The deliberate failure on the part of the Head Constable to allow me at least for a glance or reading of the recorded statement before obtaining my signature is a serious lapse on his duty besides other lapses in recording my statement.
2.6. On 07.05.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. my husband succumbed to serious injuries inflicted in his body caused by Anthony Selvam and Pankiraj who supported him. Sequel to this, the FIR was altered by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel u/s 302 of IPC. After knowing the contents of the FIR, I have been requesting the Inspector of Police, Eraniel that the statement already recorded by the said Head Constable Moni does not reflect the version of my statement and I requested him to implead the said Pankiraj as accused. However, the Inspector of Police also assured me that all necessary steps would be taken to include Pankiraj as accused as per my original version given before the Head Constable. I had also highlighted that the said Head Constable with the direction of Rajaram the S.I. of Eraniel Police Station has supported the accused by recording the statement as his own method. With reference to the time of occurrence also there is a calculated attempt to distort my original version. I am very sure that in my original version I have clearly stated that the occurrence took place at about 10 p.m. but the FIR it is deliberately stated at 8.30 p.m. The time factor is a very important aspect because my husband was returning to home after finishing his duty from the Nagercoil Railway Station. Yet another discrepancy deliberately caused by the Head Constable is that the weapon used is an iron rod as per my version but the same has been mischievously mentioned as a stick by the Head Constable. In my original version I have stated about the role of Pankiraj as supporting the illegal at of Anthony Selvam. On the other hand it is stated in the FIR that he is a witness. It is significant to note that the said Pankiraj as a relative of Anthony Selvam. My husband sustained fatal injuries all over his body and had sustained fracture in his ribs and teeth and at the time of recording the statement he has totally unconscious and in spite of all the facts the Eraniel Police has deliberately omitted to invoke the correct provisions and had only registered a case u/s 294(b), 341 and 323 of IPC.
2.7. It is apparently seen that the second Respondent Inspector of Police along with the S.I. had Head Constable Moni are supporting the accused. I have been sending so many representations to the Superintendent of Police, District Collector of Kanyakumari District and other Police authorities. All my travails in pursuit of getting justice from the officials concerned has become futile. Even though a brutal murder of my husband was committed by the said two persons and the same was duly complained by me by way of oral statement before the Head Constable Eraniel Police Station the case was weakened and spoiled in all the ways intentionally and deliberately by the investigation authority. The entire action of the police itself is a force of an investigation.
2.8. I respectfully submit that since my case was not proceeded within a proper manner, I have made representation to the Respondent officials on 30.05.2008, stating all the facts and the conduct of the police officials who were not conducting the investigation in a correct manner. Further I requested the DIG of Police to transfer the investigation to CBCID and to conduct a thorough enquiry against the said erring police officials. Even I met the Superintendent of Police and requested the change of investigation officer that was also not fruitful.
2.9. Now a charge sheet has been filed in an inconsistent manner and totally contradicting my case. A charge sheet has been filed on the basis of the distorted version completely contradicted from my original version. The first and second Respondent would have at least probed into my statement and directed some other officers to investigate my case. The impugned charge sheet clearly shows that the second Respondent has interested to safeguard the accused. Even though I have specifically stated in all my representation and pleaded with the Respondent interalia that the said Pankiraj is also one of the accused. Since Pankiraj abetted and supported the said Anthony Selvam at the time of occurrence the second Respondent ought not have cited the said Pankiraj as witness in the charge sheet circumventing the situation that my husband was in the death bed. The Head Constable Moni has misrepresented me and obtained my signature in a falsely recorded statement.
2.10. I respectfully submit that the second Respondent has not investigated the case as per my statement. Even though I have categorically given statements that my original version at the earliest point of time has been deliberately distorted the second Respondent has not considered the same and gone into the truth in a genuine manner. The statement recorded by the second Respondent from other witnesses are all chosen in a calculated manner to defeat the originality of the case. The eye witnesses Thangam alias Mariya John Arjunan son of Thangaswamy and Ammal wife of Thanga Nadar were not examined by the second Respondent. They were purposely left aloof. The second Respondent has obtained statements only from the witnesses who are supporting the accused persons. If the trial is allowed to be conducted on the basis of the impugned charge sheet there will not be any justice. If the trial is allowed to be conducted as projected and set up by the second Respondent certainly the case will end in acquittal as the time of occurrence and other material evidence were entirely contradicts my case.
2.11. Having aggrieved by the conduct of the Eraniel Police officials their investigation and the procured charge sheet I filed a criminal original petition No. 9247 of 2008 before the Hon''ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and order has been passed granting me the liberty to approach this Hon''ble Court for the relief of further investigation by way of invoking Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure and in that line the C.R.P. was disposed of.
2.12. I most respectfully submit that unless the case in Crime No. 346 of 2008 on the file of the second Respondent police, the corresponding charge sheet in S.C. No. 100 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Kanyakumari District Nagercoil is directed to be re-investigated by way of further investigation I will be put into irreparable loss and injury.
Admittedly, the original F.I.R. in Crime No. 346 of 2008 came to be registered on 04.05.2008, on the statement of the Petitioner. Crime No. 346 of 2008 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 IPC. The husband of the Petitioner died three days after the occurrence. Thereafter, the F.I.R. has been altered on 07.05.2008 to reflect offence u/s 302 IPC. As can be gathered from the affidavit, while the Petitioner informs of an attack by two persons, one has been shown as an accused and the second person has been shown as a witness. The certificate issued by the Thilaga Ram Nursing Home, Nagercoil, wherein the deceased was under treatment and died, is tell-tale. So is the post-mortem certificate. Both are reproduced hereunder:
Thilaga Ram Nursing Home, Nadukattu Esakkiyamman Koil Junction, K.P. Road, Nagercoil -629 003. Ph: (04652) 278799, 279599. Cell: 9443331899
Dr.T.R. Balaji, M.B.B.S., D. Ortho, M.S. Ortho, Registration No. 42517 Orthopedic Surgeon
Date: 07.05.2008
TREATMENT PARTICULARS
NAME
: M.VIJAYAN
AGE
: 45 Years
SEX
: Male
HOSPITAL NO.
: E-212
DATE OF INJURY
: 03.05.2008 - 8.30 p.m.
MODE OF INJURY
: Assaulted by his adjacent house owner Mr. Antony Xavier at about 8.30 p.m.
DATE OF ADMISSION
: 03.05.2008 - 11.35 p.m.
DATE OF DEATH
: 07.05.2008 - 3.50 p.m.
DIAGNOSIS: Blunt injury right side of chest with fracture of right 6th to 10th ribs, and hemopneumothorax, blunt injury right side of abdomen, ? perforation of jejunum and injury to right kidney and supra renal gland, Abrasion lower lip, nose, right forehead and around right eye. Adult respiratory distress syndrome.
TREATMENT: Cleaning and dressing of wounds. Inter costal drainage and drainage of abdomen under local Anaesthesia. Respiration assisted with Ventilator and Oxygen support. Ryle''s tube aspiration. Dopamine drip. Asthalin & Levolin Nebulizer SOS. 2 Pint ''O'' Positive blood transfused. Bladder catherised. I.V. Fluids, antibiotics, analgesic, anti gastritis drugs and B-complex given as per need.
Details of the drugs given to the patient since (03.05.2008 to 07.05.2008):
I.V. Fluids. R.L., N.S., D.N.S., 5% Dextrose, 10% Dextrose, Inj: T.T., Inj: Ampilox, Inj: Pantacid, Inj: Soda bicarbonate ,Inj: Polybius ,Inj: Decadran, Inj: Lasix, Inj: Deriphyllin, Inj: C-Tri, Inj: Tramadol, Inj: Dynaper, Inj: Ranitidine, Inj: Calcium gluconate, Inj: Metrogyl, Inj: Amikacin, Inj: Augphen, Inj: Corts, Intra cardiac Injection of Adrenaline & Inj: Dopamine drip used as per need.
He failed to recover and died at 3.50 p.m. on 07.05.2008.
POST-MORTEM CERTIFICATE
The following ante-mortem injuries noted:
(1). 5 x 2 cm abrasion seen over the right side of fore head.
(2). 3 x 1/2 cm abrasion seen over the right side of root of nose.
(3). 1/2 x 1/2 cm abrasion seen over the left side of face.
(4). Left medial upper incisor and left upper canine found uprooted. The Sackets were filled with blood clots.
(5). 1x1/2 cm abrasion seen over the center of lower jaw.
(6). 4 cm long linear seraton abrasion seen over the center of lower
(7). 1 x 1 cm abrasion seen over the left side of lower back.
(8). 1 x 1/2 x liver deep incised punctured wound seen over the right of outer aspect of lower chest.
(9). 2 x 1/2 cm peritoneal cavity deep incised punctured wound seen over the right side of outer aspect of lower abdomen.
(10). 2 x 1/2 cm x peritoneal cavity deep incised punctured wound seen over left side of lower abdomen.
All the above said abrasion are covered with reddish brown O/D chest and abdomen:
Fracture of 4 to 8th ribs on right side in their back with surrounding contusion noted. Peritoneal cavity contains 200 ml of greenish yellow colour fecal material. The loops of intestine and the peritoneum adherent. Pus material found sticking to the loops of intestine of ileum . Ileum found perforated 15 cm away from the ileac junction loops of small intestine found contused. Liver collection of blood noted inside the liver measuring about 100 gms.
(Underlining provided for emphasis)
This Court need not say anything more. This is a fit case for further investigation. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Sessions Court shall return the records committed to it in S.C. No. 100 of 2008 to the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
(ii) A further investigation in the matter shall be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police concerned. The further investigation shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the report u/s 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure shall be submitted within such period to the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
(iii) The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, shall cause fresh committal after taking into consideration the additional report received by it u/s 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure
(iv) The Superintendent of Police of Kanyakumari District is directed to cause a detailed enquiry and get to the root of the matter regards failure of his departmental subordinates in the conduct of registration and investigation in the case and take/recommend appropriate departmental action. A copy of such report shall be filed in this Court not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench for appropriate follow up.
With the above directions, this Criminal Revision is ordered.