WP (C). No. 26027 of 2009 (W). Case: DR. Balagopal 'Indeevaram', P.O. Mangalam, Lekkidi Koottupatha, Palappuram and Ottapalam Vs The Director General of Police, The Superintendent of Police, The Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Sri. P.V. Chandrasekharan. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | WP (C). No. 26027 of 2009 (W) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri. K. Ramakumar (Sr.), Sri. S. M. Prasanth and Smt. Smitha George, Advs. And For Respondents: Sri. Sebastian Davis, Adv., Sri. P. S. Sreedharan Pillai, Adv. and Smt. C. G. Preetha, Adv., Sri. T. K. Sandeep, Adv., Sri. Arjun Sreedhar, Adv., Sri. Joseph George (Mullakkariyil), Adv. and Sri. K. Rathish Kumar, Adv. Government Pleader |
| Judges | C. K. Abdul Rehim, J. |
| Issue | Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 12, 14, 14(5), 16, 17, 17(1), 18, 2(d), 36(2) |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 2812 |
| Judgement Date | March 19, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
C. K. Abdul Rehim, J.
-
The petitioner, a Medical practitioner claiming repute in the Profession, is challenging Ext. P2 order of the 3rd respondent Commission issued on a petition filed by the 4th respondent. Son of the 4th respondent Sri. P.V. Jayachandran, died at Al-Shifa Hosptial, Perinthalmanna on 22-01-2005 while undergoing treatment as in-patient, admitted of consuming large quantity of sleeping pills, on 14-01-2005. It is averred in the writ petition that the police authorities having jurisdiction had conducted a detailed enquiry with respect to the circumstances resulted in suicide of Sri. Jayachandran. Exhibit P1 is a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the District Superintendent of police, Palakkad, as early as in July 2005. In Ext. P1 it is mentioned that the allegations levelled against the petitioner through complaint submitted by wife of the 4th respondent that the petitioner had mis-utilized her son for illegal money transaction causing heavy financial liabilities and threatened and abated him to commit suicide etc; were found to be not true. Conclusions in Ext. P1 is that the petitioner is known to be a well known Doctor having private practise and his financial position is known to be very sound. It is further stated that the enquiry could not collect any piece of evidence to prove that there was abetment or threatening or to show that the petitioner was engaged in money lending activities through the deceased, as alleged. It is mentioned in Ext. P1 that the allegations were fabricated with a view to harass the petitioner, who is leading a peaceful life, and hence no further action is required. It is also revealed in Ext. P1 report that, a crime registered with respect to unnatural death of Sri. Jayachandran as Crime No. 44/2005 of Pattambi Police Station, was investigated by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police and a final report was submitted closing the case as one of suicide consuming excess sleeping pills.
-
The 4th respondent filed a petition before the 3rd respondent Commission alleging violation of human rights with respect to the suspicious circumstances leading to suicide of his son. From Ext. P2 order of the Commission it is revealed that the said petition was taken on file and the 'Chief Investigation officer (CIO)' attached to the 3rd respondent Commission was asked to file a report. On receipt of report from the CIO the matter was disposed of without issuing notice to the petitioner. After enumerating report submitted by the CIO, the Commission observed that it is revealed from the report that the deceased and the petitioner were engaged in money transactions which are not transparent, which both of them had suppressed from the 4th respondent. It is also stated that the report had revealed that the petitioner had caused a notice to the deceased and filed complaint before the Magistrate Court with respect to dishonour of cheques. The Commission found that, according to the CIO there existed some suspicion with respect of the monetary transactions between the petitioner and the deceased and the dubious financial transactions between parties may be the reason for the suicide. Therefore, as concluded in the report, with a view to get a clear picture it is desirable that an investigation is conducted in the matter by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID. Hence the State Government was requested to direct an...
To continue reading
Request your trial