THE HONOURABLE MR v. State of Tamil Nadu

For Petitioners: Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents: Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 to R5 Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, Spl. PP for CBI Cases for R6O R D E RThe de-facto complainant in a case registered as CrimeNo.159/2007 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,364, 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the fileof Brammadesam Police Station, Villupuram District is thepetitioner herein. The present petition has been filed underSection 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of investigation of the saidcase to Central Bureau of Investigation and a direction to theJoint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Nungambakkam,Chennai shown as the 6th respondent to take over the investigationof the said case from the Station House Officer of BrammadesamPolice Station, Villpuram District.2. The averments of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:-a) The petitioner herein/de-facto complainant belongs toScheduled Caste. He had got a daughter by name Sujatha and a sonby name Raja. Raja studied upto 9th Standard and of late he wasemployed at Velachery in Chennai. He developed a love affair withone Sudha, daughter of Govindasamy Gounder of Kalur village, whobelongs to a Most Backward Community. Pursuant to the said loveaffair, the said Sudha eloped with Raja on 04.04.2007. Thereafter,the father of Sudha and his men went to the residence of thepetitioner/de-facto complainant and asked Sujatha, the daughter ofthe petitioner regarding the whereabouts of Raja for which herreply was that he had gone to work. They caused intimidation bystating that they would murder Raja if he would not return on thesaid night itself. Thereafter, Govindasamy Gounder along with hisrelatives including one Devaraj, the President of Manur Panchayat,went to the house of Velayudham, the sister's son of the petitionerin a Tata Sumo car and an Ambassador car. They forcibly pushedVelayudham into the Tata Sumo car and proceeded towards Chennai insearch of Raja and Sudha. They made a search at the residence ofRenu Selvi, sister of Velayudham where they could not find eitherRaja or Sudha. They made enquiries at various places in Chennaiand at last they were able to find Raja and Sudha taking lunch inthe house of Sakthivelu in Thiruverkadu at about 12.00 noon on05.04.2007. The mob caught hold of Sudha and forcibly took her inthe said car from the said place. Raja was found running behindthe vehicle in which Sudha was taken. Some of the relatives of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sudha came there in seven motorcycles and enquired with the inmatesof the said car about the whereabouts of Raja. One of the inmatesof the car by name Arivoli informed them that Raja was runningafter the vehicle and ordered them to kill Raja. Thereafter thosepersons who came by the motorcycles and the Ambassador car tookRaja in the said Ambassador car. The mob dropped Sudha at thehouse of Arivoli in Tindivanam and Velayudham at Manur-Marakkanamroad. b) When Velayudham came back to his house, his wife enquiredas to whether Raja and Sudha were found out. At that point oftime, the petitioner, his wife and his daughter also went to theresidence of Valayudham whereupon Velayudham narrated whathappened. After sometime they were informed that Raja was foundhanging from a tree near Aiyanar koil. After seeing the dead bodyof Raja at the said place, the petitioner preferred a complaint onthe file of Brammadesam Police station, which was registered asCrime No.159/2007 for offences under Sections 147, 364, 302 IPCr/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Govindasamy Gounder, Arivoli,Vijayakumar, Elumalai, Dhanusu and others had been arraigned asaccused. Instead of properly investigating the case and arrestingthe accused, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam sub-division and the Station House Officer, Brammadesam Police Station,who figure as respondents 4 and 5 respectively, were activelyassisting and helping the accused by playing all kinds of tacticsto dilute the murder case, which forced the petitioner and hissupporters to hold agitation and demonstrations in a democratic waypressing for the immediate arrest of the accused. Despite thesame, no prompt action was taken. Therefore, Sujatha, the daughterof the petitioner herein, above said Velayudham and one Roopavathymade separate representations to the District Collector, VillupuramDistrict furnishing vital details regarding the murder of Raja.One Sakthivelu from whose house Sudha was taken by the mob and hiswife Poongkodi also made separate representations on 10.04.2007 tothe District Superintendent of Police, Villpuram, the thirdrespondent herein. c) Similarly, one Renu Selvi also made a representation to theDeputy Superintendent of Police (4th respondent herein) on12.04.2007 narrating the facts she knew about the occurrence. Whenthe petitioner and others were hoping for the officials to takeappropriate action against the culprits, the Deputy Superintendentof Police, namely the 4th respondent herein submitted an alterationreport on 21.04.2007 on the file of the learned JudicialMagistrate, Tindivanam to the effect that Raja had committedsuicide as he was depressed due to the separation of Sudha from himand altering the case by substituting Section 306 IPC for Section302 IPC. The fourth respondent, instead of taking an impartialinvestigation, misled the investigation to come to the conclusionthat Raja had committed suicide. For that purpose he carefullymanipulated the statements of the witnesses in order to help theaccused to escape from the charge of murder. The alteration report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 06.04.2007 was submitted by the fourth respondent on09.04.2007 so as to coincide with the arrest of the first accused.The same was done without even obtaining a copy of the postmortemreport. The facts stated by the eye witnessess such as Velayudham,Sakthivelu and Poongkodi did not inspire the fourth respondent toinvestigate the case, based on their statements. It was impossiblefor Raja to reach his native place which is near Tindivanam withina short time after Sudha was forcibly taken. The fact that Rajawas found hanging using the shawl (duppatta) of Sudha had not beenconsidered by the Investigating Officer on proper perspective.Only the fifth accused Dhanusu besides the first accusedGovindasamy Gounder was arrested, that too, at a belated stage andhe was also released on bail. Due to his release on bail, A5-Dhanusu ventured to threaten Velayaudham with dire consequences, ifhe did not refrain from following the case. All the above saidfactors go to show that the investigation left in the hands of thelocal police resulted in their manipulation of things andobstruction of the lawful attempts of the petitioner to have a fairand just investigation of the case in accordance with law.Therefore, it has become necessary that this court passes an orderexercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C fortransferring the investigation to CBI.3. The fourth respondent, namely the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Tindivanam sub-division, Villupuram District alone hasfiled a counter. Besides stating the fact that the case wasregistered in Crime No.159/2007 on the file of Brammadesam PoliceStation for offences under Sections 147, 364, 302 IPC r/w Section3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 and the brief contents of the complaint ofthe petitioner based on which the said case was registered, thefollowing contentions were raised in the said counter:- a) The investigation of the case was taken up by the thenDeputy Superintendent of Police on 06.04.2007, who conducted theinquest on the body of deceased Raja at the Government Hospital,Tindivanam. On the requisition of the Investigating Officer,autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors. Thereafter, theInvestigating Officer went to the scene of occurrence and preparedobservation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of Mahazarwitnesses Meiyazhagan and Venkatesan. On 07.04.2007 sevenwitnesses, including the petitioner, were examined by theInvestigating Officer. Subramani, Arumugam, Palani, Rajagopal andRavichandran, who were the panchayatdars for the inquest were alsoexamined on the same day. They opined that the death was due tosuicide. No external injury was found on the dead body of thedeceased. During the course of the investigation i.e. on06.04.2007. Mr.Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Policealtered the sections from 147, 364, 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 to 147, 364, 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. He also arrested the accused Govindasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gounder on 09.04.2007 and produced him before the JudicialMagistrate-1, Tindivanam for remand to judicial custody. On24.07.2007, the Investigating Officer arrested A5 – Dhanusu andsent him for remand to judicial custody. On 23.07.2007, A2-Arivoliand on 24.04.2007-A3 Vijayakumar and A4-Elumalai surrendered beforethe Sessions Court, Villupuram and thereafter they were alsoreleased on bail on 25.04.2007. Postmortem certificate was issuedby the team of doctors attached to the Government Hospital,Tindivanam incorporating an opinion "the deceased Raja would appearto have died of asphyxia".b) On 05.05.2007, the Investigating Officer enquired Sudha,daughter of A1-Govindasamy Gounder. In her statement she statedthat the deceased Raja had taken her to Chennai and she returnedalong with her father when her father came to Chennai aftersometime and asked her to come along with him. On 06.05.2007, theInvestigating Officer enquired one Devaraj, who stated that he didnot know about the details of the case. After completion of theinvestigation, the Investigating Officer, namely the then DeputySuperintendent of Police, laid a charge-sheet against the accusedpersons 1 to 5 for offences under Sections 147 and 306 IPC r/wSection 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the file of the JudicialMagistrate No.2, Tindivanam and the same was taken on file as PRCNo.22/2007. The case was subsequently, committed to the Court ofSession, Villupuram and numbered there as S.C.No.194/2010. TheInvestigating Officer conducted proper and impartial investigationin accordance with law. Therefore the prayer for transfer ofinvestigation to CBI should be rejected.4. In the light of the above said averments made in thepetition and the counter averments made in the counter filed by thefourth respondent, the question that arises for considerationbefore this court is "whether the investigation in CrimeNo.159/2007 on the file of the Brammadesam PoliceStation was not done in proper, fair and unbiasedmanner and whether it is necessary in theinterest of justice to direct investigation ofthe case by CBI or any other specialised agency?"5. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondents 1 to 5and by Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor forCBI Cases representing the sixth respondent were heard.6. Complaining bias and improper investigation in a case ofmurder which resulted in the alteration of the case into a case ofsuicide, the de-facto complainant, the father of the deceased hasknocked at the doors of this court invoking its inherent powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the transfer of investigation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case to Central Bureau of Investigation and a consequentialdirection to the sixth respondent, namely the Joint Director ofCentral Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation ofthe case in Crime No.159/2007.7. Admittedly the case was registered based on the complaintof the petitioner (de-facto complainant) against five named accusedand others for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 364and 302 IPC r/w section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The casewas registered on 05.04.2007. Within a day thereafter, namely06.04.2007, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-division, (the Investigating Officer) signed an alteration reportand submitted the same to the committal magistrate on 09.04.2007.By the alteration report, the case was altered by substitutingSection 302 IPC with Section 306 IPC and thereby converting a caseof murder into a case of abetment of suicide. The said act on thepart of the Investigating Officer, according to the petitioner, wascommitted in a haste with intention to screen the offenders andsave them from prosecution for a capital offence, namely murder.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the haste with which the Investigating Officer had acted willgo to show that he was biased and the alteration report itself wasthe result of such bias, which shall also be obvious from the factthat even before obtaining a copy of the postmortem certificatecontaining the opinion of the doctors who conducted autopsyregarding cause of death, the said alteration was made. The secondrespondent may not have any interest in the outcome of thispetition and hence nothing has been canvassed on behalf of thesecond respondent. Of course, the respondents 3 to 5 being policeofficials out of whom one was the Investigating Officer havecontended that there was no substance in the contention raised bythe petitioner and the petition should be dismissed. The stand ofthe sixth respondent is not committal as there is no role for thesixth respondent to play before ever the investigation of a case isentrusted to CBI. So, in the light of the rival contentions, theissue involved in this petition has to be considered.9. Before making a decision in this petition, this courtwanted to peruse the Case Diary file and thus the fourth respondentwas directed to produce the Case Diary file. Accordingly, the casediary file has also been placed before the court for its perusaland reference in this petition. Crime No.159/2007 was registered on05.04.2007 at 23.00 Hrs. (11.00 p.m) showing Govindasamy Gounder,Arivoli, Vijayakumar, Elumalai, Dhanusu and few other unnamedpersons as accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 364and 302 IPC r/w section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 relating tothe death of Raja, son of the petitioner herein. The case wasregistered based on the complaint of the petitioner herein. In thesaid complaint, clear averments have been made to the effect thatthe deceased developed a love affair with one Sudha, the daughter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the first accused; that on 04.04.2007 she contacted Raja overcellphone, who was at that point of time employed at Velacherry inChennai, and informed him that she would commit suicide if he didnot marry her; that pursuant to the same the deceased Raja came toKalur and took the said Sudha to Chennai; that the first accused(father of Sudha) and others after making enquiries in the village,took one Velayudham, the sister's son of the petitioner to takethem to the place wherein Raja and Sudha were hiding in Chennai;that thereafter they caught hold of Sudha and Raja, brought themback to the village; that then they separated Sudha from Raja andtook her with them; that subsequently at 4.00 p.m on 05.04.2007when the friends of Raja went near the Aiyanar Koil, they sawGovindasamy Gounder, Arivoli, Vijayakumar, Elumalai, Dhanusu (A1 toA5) and others in the process of hanging something in the tree nearthe said temple; that on seeing them the accused fled away from theplace; that there upon they identified the person hanging to beRaja and that when they brought down Raja from the tree he wasfound dead. Petitioner had also averred in the complaint that hisson Raja had been done to death by the named and unnamed accusedpersons. As the case was one for an offence punishable underSection 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also, the investigation of thecase was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,Tindivanam sub-division. 10. Admittedly, at the inception itself, the case wasregistered for an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989also, besides other offences under the Indian Penal Code includingone for a murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The offences ofthe atrocities on the members of the scheduled caste and scheduledtribes punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989 areto be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of DeputySuperintendent of Police appointed by the State Government /Director General of Police / Superintendent of Police. Suchappointment of Investigating Officer should be made after takinginto account the officer's past experience, sense of ability andjustice to perceive the implications of the case and to investigateit along with right lines within the shortest possible time. 11. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 prescribes the officers bywhom the offences under the Act shall be investigated and by whomsuch Investigating Officer shall be appointed and what are theconsiderations to be made before making such appointments. For thepurpose of easy reference, Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 isreproduced here under:-"7. Investigating Officer. - (1) An offence committedunder the Act shall be investigated by a policeofficer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendentof Police. The Investigating Officer shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed by the State Government/Director General ofPolice/Superintendent of Police after taking intoaccount his past experience, sense of ability andjustice to perceive the implications of the case andinvestigate it along with right lines within theshortest possible time.(2) The investigating officer so appointedunder the sub-rule (1) shall complete theinvestigation on top priority basis within thirtydays and submit the report to the Superintendent ofPolice who in turn will immediately forward thereport to the Director General of Police to the StateGovernment.(3) The Home Secretary and the SocialWelfare Secretary to the State Government, Directorof Prosecution, the officer in-charge of Prosecutionand the Director General of Police shall review bythe end of every quarter the position of allinvestigations done by the investigating officer."12. In this case, there is nothing to show who appointedMr.Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam sub-division to be the Investigating officer of the case. There isnothing on record to show that Mr.Kumar, the then DeputySuperintendent of Police was appointed as Investigating Officerspecifically for this case or was authorised by the StateGovernment or the Director General of Police or the Superintendentof Police concerned by a general or special order to investigatethe cases involving offences punishable under the Scheduled Casteand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arisingwithin his sub-division. Copy of such order, if any, is also notproduced. Even if an order could have been passed, whether thequalities of the officer to be appointed as the InvestigatingOfficer in such cases, as recited in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Casteand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 hasbeen considered, is not known. Under such circumstances, theinvestigation conducted by Mr.Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendentof Police without getting an order of appointment appointing him asInvestigating Officer generally in cases of offences under SC/STAct, 1989 within the Tindivanam sub-division or specifically inthis case shall also vitiate the investigation and consequently theprosecution. In the CD file produced for the perusal of the court,there is nothing on record to show that such an order was passed.No copy of the order appointing him as Investigating Officer isfound in the CD file. Even in the list of documents submittedalong with the final report, a copy of which is available in the CDfile, wherein 12 documents have been mentioned, the order ofappointment appointing him as the Investigating Officer is notfound. The final report submitted in this case also does not referto any such order appointing him as Investigating Officer inaccordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. 13. An attempt was made on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 tocontend that the second respondent conducted investigation inaccordance with the general circular issued by the Director Generalof Police. The validity of such circulars issued by the DirectorGeneral of Police came to be considered by this court inV.P.Kuppurao versus Director General of Police, Tamil NaduGovernment DGP Office, Mylapore, Chennai 4 and others reported in(2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 247 and this court by order dated 05.10.2009held that such an order is invalid and ineffective. The followingcomprehensive directions were issued regarding appointment ofInvestigating Officers in cases involving commission of offencespunishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:-" i) As per Rule 7(1) only police officers not belowthe rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/AssistantSuperintendent of Police (Sub-divisional Officers)can be appointed as Investigating Officers.ii) Before appointing a person as InvestigatingOfficer to investigate a case involving thecommission of offences punishable under theprovisions of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989, the qualities of such officerindicated in Rule 7(1) should be considered.iii) The circular memos issued by the DirectorGeneral of Police in a) Rc.No.244989/1 Cr. 3(2)/96dated 03.12.1996, b) Rc.No.244989-2/Cr.3(2)/97 dated17.03.1997 and c) Rc.No.116040/Cr.3(1)/98 dated27.07.1998 are not in conformity with Rule 7(1) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Rules, 1995 in its letter and spiritand hence they are invalid.iv) The restrictive clause for consideration of thequalities mentioned in Rule 7(1) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Rules, 1995 shall be applicable only whenthe officers below the rank of Superintendent ofPolice viz. Additional Superintendent of Police,Assistant Superintendent of Police or DeputySuperintendent of Police, are sought to be appointedas Investigating Officers and such restriction shallnot be applicable in case of appointment of theSuperintendent of Police or the officers above suchrank as investigating officers since Superintendentof Police is one of the appointing authorities underRule 7(1). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ v) The appointment of Investigating Officers may bemade on case to case basis. But there is noprohibition for issuing general directions forappointment of Investigating Officers provided suchgeneral directions are in conformity with Rule 7(1)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. For examplea list containing the names of the police officersbelow the rank of Superintendent of Police and notbelow the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police(viz. Additional Superintendent of Police, AssistantSuperintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent ofPolice), after considering their qualities asmentioned in Rule 7(1) may be prepared and publishedperiodically declaring them eligible to function asInvestigating Officers in cases of atrocities underthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising withintheir jurisdiction subject to any other generaldirection regarding territorial jurisdiction. Suchgeneral circular shall also contain a direction as towhich other officer is to be appointed as theInvestigating Officer, in case the name of aparticular sub-divisional police officer posted to aparticular sub-division is not found in the approvedlist. vi) Such general directions shall also be readsubject to an exception that the State Government orDirector General of Police or the Superintendent ofPolice concerned may appoint any other competentofficer, whose name is found in such a list asinvestigating officer for a particular case.vii) Till such a list is prepared, the appointment ofinvestigating officer shall be made on case to casebasis after considering the qualities of the officeras prescribed under Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Rules, 1995. viii) In case a police officer in the rank of DeputySuperintendent of Police and above figures as anaccused in a case, then it is desirable to have ahigher official of the police department as theInvestigating Officer.The above guidelines for appointment of InvestigatingOfficers for investigation of offences punishable under theprovisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be followed infuture. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. Pointing out the above said lacuna, the learned counselfor the petitioner also argued that the said lacuna wasdeliberately provided to help the accused to ultimately escape fromthe punishment, at least by showing the technical flaw in theinvestigation of the case. This court is not in a position toreject the said contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner as untenable. For the reasons cited supra, the saidcontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to becountenanced. On that ground alone there is scope for directingre-investigation of the case by an Investigating Officer properlyappointed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.15. It is pertinent to note that there are enough materials toshow that Sudha was taken in a Sumo car and the deceased Raja wastaken in the Ambassador car in which the accused persons proceededtowards Chennai in search of them and that the deceased Raja couldnot have reached the village within four hours from 12.00 noon whenSudha was separated from Raja and brought to their village. It isalso pertinent to note that the material used for hanging was ashawl (duppatta) of Sudha. The then Deputy Superintendent ofPolice has not chosen to conduct any investigation as to how thesaid duppatta happened to be used for hanging and if it could besuicide, how and in what circumstances the deceased came to possessthe duppatta. 15. It is the further contention of the learned counselfor the petitioner that the biased investigation with the intentionof helping the accused to escape from the punishment for a capitaloffence shall be obvious from the haste with which theInvestigating Officer chose to alter the case disregarding thestatements given by the witnesses. The case was registered at23.00 Hours on 05.04.2007. The then Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Tindivanam sub-division, as per the averments found in thecounter, took up the investigation of the case only on 06.04.2007on which date he conducted inquest at the Government Hospital,Tindivanam and examined the Panchayatdars and other witnesses. Asper the copy of the inquest report found in the case diary file,the inquest was conducted between 6.00 a.m and 9.00 a.m on06.04.2007. Only after inquest requisition for autopsy would havebeen given. After completing the inquest, the Deputy Superintendentof Police seems to have gone to the place of occurrence to preparethe observation mahazar and rough sketch at 9.30 a.m. Postmortemexamination was concluded only at 1.30 p.m (13.30 hours) on06.04.2007. Except expressing an opinion that the death appearedto have occurred between 24 to 32 hours prior to autopsy, noopinion regarding the cause of death was expressed by the MedicalOfficers who conducted autopsy in the postmortem certificate signedby them, a copy of which is found in the CD file. The opinion wasdeferred till the receipt of Medical Analysis and Forensic ScienceLab report. Under such circumstances, before ever getting theopinion of the Medical Officers, who conducted autopsy, regardingthe cause of death and even before getting the initial postmortem https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ report, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police chose to convertthe case within 24 hours into a case of abetment of suicide from acase of murder and prepare an alteration report on 06.04.2007itself. Though the alteration report was signed by him on06.04.2007, it was submitted to the committal magistrate only on09.04.2007, when Al-Govindasamy Gounder was arrested and producedfor remand. The contention of the petitioner that the same was donewith the sole purpose of helping the said accused to come out onbail, cannot be rejected as untenable or without any basis.16. Similarly there is also substance in the contentionthat the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam sub-division failed to arrest the other accused till they were able toget necessary directions from the High Court for consideration anddisposal of their bail applications on the date of their surrenderitself and had thus paved the way for their immediate release onbail. It is also admitted that the opinion of the Medical Officerswho conducted autopsy is that the deceased appeared to have died ofasphyxia. In fact there is a copy of a letter written by the DeputySuperintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-division to the ChiefMedical Officer, Government Hospital, Tindivanam signed on21.04.2007 raising the following questions:-i)Whether the death of the deceased was suicide?ii)Whether there was evidence of postmortem hanging? andiii)Whether the ligature mark found on the neck wasantemortem or postmortem ligature mark?The fact that he had written such a letter on 21.04.2007 will go toshow that he was indecisive as to whether the death was homicidalor suicidal. That being so, it is quite surprising as to how thesaid officer came to the conclusion 15 days prior to the date ofthe said letter, that too on the very date on which theinvestigation was started, that the death was suicidal and nothomicidal. 17. In addition, it cannot be said that there was nothing inthe materials collected by the said Deputy Superintendent of Policeon 06.04.2007 to show that the death of the deceased could not behomicidal and it was only suicide. Only the persons who had beenasked by the Investigating Officer to be the panchayatdars for thepreparation of the inquest report had chosen to opine that thedeceased Raja committed suicide. But there are statements of otherwitnesses, including the petitioner Elumlai and Velayudham to theeffect that the deceased was done to death and was hung in the treenear the temple, by the accused persons. They have also statedthat the friends of Raja saw the accused persons hanging Raja in atree near Aiyanarappan temple. Under the said circumstances,without even awaiting the result of the postmortem examination andwithout properly examining the friends of deceased Raja, who isalleged to have seen the accused persons hanging the deceased in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the tree near the temple, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police,Tindivanam Sub-division chose to alter the case by substitutingSection 302 IPC with Section 306 IPC and thereby altering the casefrom one of murder to one of abetment of suicide. The haste withwhich the said officer has acted will show the substance in thecontention of the petitioner that the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice was influenced by the accused persons and that with a biasedattitude and with an intention to help the accused, the saidofficer had done it. It should also be noticed that not even thepostmortem certificate sans final opinion regarding the cause ofdeath was received by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, on06.04.2007, when the case was altered. In paragraph 9 of thecounter affidavit of the fourth respondent, it has been stated thatthe postmortem certificate was received by the InvestigatingOfficer only on 25.04.2007 and the doctors had opined in the saidcertificate that the deceased Raja appeared to have died ofasphyxia. There is nothing to indicate whether the death washomicidal or suicidal. Before ever getting the opinion of thedoctor regarding the cause of death, that too within 24 hours aftertaking up the investigation of the case, the then DeputySuperintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-division seems to havechosen to alter the case from one of murder to one of abetment ofattempt of suicide. The same, as rightly pointed out by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, was done without any basis. 19. A perusal of the records and the way in which the case wasaltered would show that the investigation conducted by the thenDeputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam Sub-division, whoaltered the case on the very same day on which he took up theinvestigation from one of murder to one of abetment of suicide andwho ultimately filed a final report in accordance with the saidalteration report, was not only hasty but also biased showingpurposive investigation with the view to screen the accused andhelp them to escape from punishment for a graver offence, namely anoffence for murder, if not from the punishment of other offencesreferred to in the FIR and the final report.20. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that the investigation conducted by the then DeputySuperintendent of Police in Crime No.159/2007 is biased and taintedand that the case requires a fresh investigation an impartialofficer, who shall be competent to investigate the case either byvirtue of his petition or by virtue of an appointment in accordancewith Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Rules, 1995. In V.P.Kuppurao versus DirectorGeneral of Police, Tamil Nadu Government DGP Office, Mylapore,Chennai 4 and others reported in (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 247. Thiscourt has held that all the Superintendents of Police are competentto investigate the cases involving offences under the ScheduledCaste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,without any further order of appointment since the Superintendentof Police is shown to be the one of the appointing authorities. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ However, the officers below the rank of Superintendent of Policeshall have to be appointed by any one of the three authoritiesmentioned in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Considering thecomplexities and the sensational nature of this case, this Courtdeems it fit to direct a fresh investigation to be conducted by anOfficer of the CBCID in the rank of Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, who shall be appointed by the Superintendent of Police,CBCID, Sub-urban Chennai, after considering the qualities of suchofficer in accordance with Rule 7 of Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. 21. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that thefinal report submitted by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police,Tindivanam Sub-Division was taken on file by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Tindivanam as P.R.C.No.22 of 2007; that an ordercommitting the case for trial to the Court of Session, Villupuramwas passed and that the case is now pending on the file of theCourt of Session, Villupuramin S.C.No.194 of 2010. In view of thefact that this Court has not only arrived at a conclusion that theinvestigation seems to be biased, but also has found that theinvestigation conducted by Mr.Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendentof Police, Tindivanam Sub-Division was not the one made by anofficer appointed in accordance with Rule 7 of Scheduled Caste andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, to preventmiscarriage of justice it has become necessary to quash the finalreport, committed order of the Magistrate and the Sessions case nowpending before the Sessions Court and direct a fresh investigationin the case to be made by an officer of the CBCID in the rank of aDeputy Superintendent of Police, who shall be appointed in themanner indicated supra.22. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed.A fresh investigation of the case registered in Cr.No.159 of 2007on the file of Brammadesan Police Station shall be undertaken by anofficer of CBCID, who shall be appointed by a written order to beissued by the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Sub-urban, Chennaiin accordance with Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. To enable suchfresh investigation, Crime No.159 of 2007 registered on the file ofBrammadesam Police Station shall stand transferred to the file ofCBCID, Chennai. Consequently, the committal order passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II in P.R.C.No.22 of 2007 and thecriminal proceedings presently pending on the file of SessionsCourt, Villupuram in S.C.No.194 of 2010 are quashed. TheInvestigating Officer, who is to be appointed in accordance withthis order, shall complete the investigation within the timespecified in the rules from the date on which he receives theappointment order. The Superintendent Police, CBCID, Sub-urban,Chennai shall issue such an order within a week from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. By way of clarification, it isalso added that the new Investigating Officer, who shall conduct https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fresh investigation, may make use of any of the materials availablein the CD file maintained by the previous Investigating Officersubject to its relevancy and reliability. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarasr1.The Home Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai – 600 0092.The District Collector Villupuram & District3.The District Superintendent of Police Villupuram & District4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tindivanam Sub-Division Villupuram District5.The Station House Officer Brammadesam Police Station Villupuram District 6.The Joint Director Central Bureau of Investigation Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 0347.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.8.The Special Public Prosecutorfor CBI Case, High Court,Madras.1 cc To Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate, SR.77227Crl.OP.No.13862 of 2007bs(co)pmk.27.10.2010.