Mere apprehension without materials cannot be entertained – Madras High Court

The petitioner’s claims concerning the investigation are unfounded. As can be seen, the inquiry into this matter is continuing as planned. Already, 55 witnesses have been interviewed, a forensic report has been acquired, and a post mortem doctor’s opinion has been obtained. Also, CDR data has been collected and validated. This was decided by the single bench heading Honourable Justice M. Nirmal Kumar in the case of Uma v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors. (W.P.No.20976/2021)

The crux of the issue is that the complainant’s mother Nachathal was living alone in Ayegoundanpalayam after her father died five years ago. A case was registered in Crime No.64 of 2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., on the complaint of one Chellamuthu/de facto complainant when the de facto complainant received a phone call from the Villagers about 5 p.m. on 17th February, 2021, informing him of smoke coming from his mother’s house. The de facto complainant’s mother committed suicide by self-immolation, and the complainant instructed his relative Eswari to check and tell. Eswari went to the Nachathal’s residence and found that the de facto complainant’s mother had committed suicide by self-immolation. Doctors at the Dharapuram Government Hospital then confirmed her dead and deposited her remains in the morgue.

The petitioner, who is the daughter of deceased, expressed concern about her mother’s death and made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, on February 24, 2021. The petitioner’s complaint is that on February 18, 2021, about 5.30 p.m., she alerted the Mulanur Police that she had some doubts about her mother’s death. Her mother had been murdered, and she felt it was the fault of her brother Chellamuthu and sister-in-law Anbukarasi. The petitioner’s complaint is that the First Information Report was submitted incorrectly with misleading information, and she gathered photographs of her mother’s body, but no action was taken, and the claims recorded were not accurate. The Mulanur Police do not collect the phone numbers of the suspects. The probe had been stalled for more than three months by the police. The details of the CDR were not verified.

The following facts were discovered throughout the investigation. Nachathal was about 80 years old when she died, and she was living alone in a modest cottage in Ayegoundanpalayam Village. She had two children, one named Tr. Chellamuthu and the other named Tmt. Umadevi, who is the petitioner in this case. There was a feud between Nachathal’s and Umadevi’s families. As a result, the petitioner no longer visits Nachathal’s home. As a result, they were unable to communicate with one another and expressed their displeasure with one another. Tmt. UmaDevi, despite residing in a neighbouring village about two kilometers away, has never visited or assisted her mother Nachathal. The claimed Nachathal was in a lot of mental pain and used to communicate to a woman named Eswari, who told her that she was disinherited in life and that her son and daughter had abandoned her. She told Eswari @ Rajeswari that she was going to commit suicide by self-immolation.

So, here the single bench heading Honourable Justice M. Nirmal Kumar dismissed the petition stating that furthermore, the petitioner’s concerns about the investigation are baseless. The inquiry in this case appears to be going in the right way. Already, 55 witnesses have been interviewed, a forensic report has been acquired, and a postmortem doctor’s opinion has been obtained. CDR data has been collected and validated. A forensic report from the Regional Forensic Laboratory in Chennai is also required. The records will be scrutinized in their entirety, and a second view will be sought. It can be noticed that a significant chunk of the investigation has progressed. The allegations leveled against the Mulanur Police Station Investigating Officer and the CBCID Investigating Officer are unsupported by evidence.

As a result, the above petitions are unlikely to be heard by this Court. The petitioner’s assertion that she and her girls were intimidated by someone is just that: an allegation. The petitioner has made no specific references to anyone or offered any information. There is likewise no concrete justification presented for doubting the forensic report. It is impossible to entertain mere apprehension in the absence of evidence.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Himanshu Ranjan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat