Kerala High Court: In a recent case of Hyzel Stewert’s unnatural death, a bench of Kemal Pasha J. directed to quash the final report filed by the 3rd additional respondent and also directed the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch to conduct the investigation in the matter and to file a final report at any rate within a period of 3 months.
In the instant case, the unfortunate father of a young girl filed a complaint under Section 482 CrPC for expeditious disposal of a case filed earlier in respect of his daughter’s death, alleging that from the very beginning the local police had showed a lethargic attitude in conducting the investigation in the case, and that the accused have influenced the police on the basis of his money power and muscle power.
The Court went through the copy of the postmortem certificate of the victim and noted that “there is not even an inch of space in her body which is free from injuries”, “Can it be believed that a person who has sustained these much of ante-mortem injuries could climb over some thing in order to reach the fan on the roof and to hang for committing suicide?”. The Court assumed the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution relying on the decision of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters, and rejected the contention of the Sri P. Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the additional respondents that the injuries on the body of the deceased resulted from resuscitation attempts resorted to by the doctors to resuscitate the deceased who was suffering from heart ailment.
The Court found that the whole investigation is shabby, and noted that “this Court is not making an opinion as to whether an offence under Section 302, IPC is there in this case or not. Even if she is murdered, the offence under Section 304-B, IPC will lie in the matter, over and above the offence under Section 302, IPC”. The Court stated that “the investigation conducted by the investigation officer was not proper and adequate. The apprehension forwarded by the petitioner seems to be genuine”. On the basis of the above finding, the Court directed to quash the final report filed by the 3rd additional respondent, and directed the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch to conduct a further investigation in the matter by himself or by making use of a team of high officers under him, and to file a final report within 3 months of this Order. Stebert Kumar v. State of
