Kerala High Court
Fathima P vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
1
2025:KER:59869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 977 OF 2025
CRIME NO.372/2020 OF Perumpadappu Police Station,
Malappuram
PETITIONER(S)/MOTHER OF THE DECEASED/VICTIM:
FATHIMA P
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. HASSAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KADAVANADU AMSOM,
PUTHU PONNANI DESOM, PONNANI SOUTH, PONNANI
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679586
BY ADV. SHRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/INVESTIGATION AGENCY:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECREATARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
AFFAIRS, SECERTARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY SUPERINDENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,
MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMPADAPPU
PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION, PERUMPADAPPU POLICE
STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679580
4 HAJIRA
W/O. SHARAFUDHEEN, KIZHAKKATHU VEETTIL,
VELIYAMKODU, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679579
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
2
2025:KER:59869
BY ADV.
SR PP, SRI. HRITHWIK C S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
3
2025:KER:59869
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P.(Crl.) No.977 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed seeking the
following reliefs:
“(1) To call for records leading to Exhibit P9
and quash the same (to the extent disputed herein) by
issuing a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ Order or direction,
(2) To direct second respondent or such other
Investigating Agency to charge sheet fourth respondent
for offences punishable under Section 304, 201 of the
Indian Penal Code (or such other penal provision as the
case may be) in Crime No. 372 of 2020 of
Perumpadappu Police Station, Malappuram District by
issuing a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction,
(3) Alternatively to direct first respondent to
appoint a competent agency to re-investigate intoCrime
No. 372 of 2020 of Perumpadappu Police Station,
Malappuram Districtby issuing a Writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction,
(4) To dispense with filling of English
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
42025:KER:59869
translation of Exhibits in Malayalam / Vernacular
language.
(5) Such other relief as this Honourable Court
may deem fit to grant.” [SIC]
2. The son of the petitioner succumbed to the
injuries sustained to him on 11.11.2020 at Government
Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. The son of the petitioner
was lying with a head injury in an under-construction house
by the neighbors at about 6.45 hours on 05.11.2020.
Ext.P1 is the First Information Report. Ext.P2 is the
postmortem certificate. The investigation was conducted by
the Perumpadappu Police Station. They found that the
deceased and the 4th respondent herein were present in the
scene and the deceased fell down from the top floor of an
under construction building and caused injuries, and hence
closed the matter with a remark ”further action dropped”.
Ext.P3 is the final report. A separate crime was registered
against the deceased for trespass under Section 448 of the
IPC as evident by Ext.P4. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
5
2025:KER:59869
petitioner filed a protest complaint as evident by Ext.P5.
Ext.P6 is the objection to Ext.P5. The learned Magistrate
proceeded with the case under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.
Ext.P7 is the order. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 and seeking further
investigation, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.C. No.231/2024
before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P8 order, set aside
Ext.P7 and directed the Crime Branch to investigate the
matter. On the basis of Ext.P8 order, the District Crime
Branch, Malappuram re-investigated the matter. Again the
District Crime Branch submitted Ext.P9 report. Aggrieved by
the same, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
contentions raised in this Writ Petition. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that, after re-investigation, the Crime
Branch also concluded that no offence is committed and the
case is closed as ‘further action dropped’. The Public
Prosecutor takes me through Ext.P9 and submitted that the
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
6
2025:KER:59869
Crime Branch considered the matter in detail in Ext.P9.
5. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the
Crime Branch re-investigated the matter especially when
there is a direction from this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. This
Court after perusing the case diary prima facie found that
there is suspicion in the death. It will be better to extract
the relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment:
“6. Since the nature of the allegations raised
some suspicion, this Court called for the case diary and
perused it. It is noticed that when information was
received regarding an injured lying in an incomplete
building, police registered the crime and commenced an
investigation. Subsequently, the mobile phone of the
injured was seized from the 3rd respondent, who is
alleged to have had an extramarital relationship with
the injured. Sri. Suresh E.I., who was the investigating
officer initially, went on medical leave on 11.11.2020,
and the investigation was handed over to another
officer. Curiously, the injured person succumbed to his
injuries on 11.11.2020. A perusal of the statement of
the 3rd respondent under section 164 Cr.P.C and the
other statements given by her to the police indicates
that there are contradictions and inconsistencies
between those statements.
7. Though experts are able to identify from
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
7
2025:KER:59869
the nature of injuries as to whether the fall from a
building is an accidental fall or a fall caused by a push,
investigation, unfortunately has not been carried out in
that manner. The difference in trajectory can bring in a
different type of injuries. As noticed from the
postmortem report, the injuries are all on the back of
the body especially on the back of the head. The nature
of the injuries, as noticed from the postmortem
certificate, thus raises some doubt regarding the
manner in which those injuries would have been
caused. It is also noticed that neither the case diary
contains the wound certificate nor has all the witnesses
been questioned effectively.
8. In the decision in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali
(2013) 5 SCC 762, it was held that Constitutional
courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
direct ‘further investigation’ or ‘reinvestigation’. Of
course, in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and Others
(2016) 4 SCC 160, it was held that the direction for
further investigation by another agency has to be very
sparingly issued.
9. Considering the entire circumstances, this
Court believes that the investigation already carried out
is insufficient. The wound certificate must be recovered
apart from properly analysing the injuries and other
attendant factors. A scientific probe is required with
modern investigative measures. A proper and effective
investigation is needed to be carried out in its entirety
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
8
2025:KER:59869
into both crimes. The circumstances depicted in this
case compel this Court to exercise the power to order a
re-investigation as that alone may do complete justice.
The situation thus warrants a re-investigation by the
District Crime Branch.
10. Accordingly, Annexure 3 order dated 10-
05-2023 in C.M.P. No.7391/2022 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Ponnani is set
aside. There will be a direction to the District
Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, to hand over the
investigation of Crime No.372/2020 and Crime
No.369/2020 both of Perumpadappu Police Station to
the District Crime Branch to conduct a re-investigation
into the aforesaid crimes.
Crl.M.C is allowed as above. ”
6. This Court in the above judgment clearly
found that, in the statement of the 4 th respondent under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the other statements given by her to
the police indicates that there are contradictions and
inconsistencies between those statements. I could not find
any investigation conducted by the Crime Branch on that
angle in Ext.P9. Again this Court found that though experts
are able to identify from the nature of injuries as to whether
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
92025:KER:59869
the fall from a building is an accidental fall or a fall caused
by a push, investigation, unfortunately has not been carried
out in that manner. I could not find any investigation
conducted on that angle as per Ext.P9. This Court also
observed that the nature of the injuries, as noticed from the
postmortem certificate raises some doubt regarding the
manner in which those injuries would have been caused.
This Court also found that neither the case diary contains
the wound certificate nor has all the witnesses been
questioned effectively. A perusal of Ext.P9 would not show
that, any detailed investigation is conducted in that angle. I
am of the considered opinion that the investigation is to be
conducted as directed by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment.
The investigation is conducted based on Ext.P8 by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, C-Branch, Malappuram. I
am of the considered opinion that the Superintendent of
Police who is in charge of the Crime Branch, Malappuram
himself should investigate this matter.
Therefore, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is allowed in the
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
102025:KER:59869
following manner:
1. The findings in Ext.P9 report by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, C-Branch, Malappuram is
rejected.
2. The Superintendent of Police who is in charge of
Crime Branch, Malappuram himself will further
investigate Crime No.372/2020 of Perumpadappu
Police Station forthwith, and complete the
investigation in the light of the observations in
Ext.P8 judgment, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
W.P.(Crl.).No.977 of 2025
11
2025:KER:59869
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 977/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 372 OF 2020 OF
PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE
IN CRIME NO. 372 OF 2020 ISSUED FROM
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRISSUR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
24.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION IN
CRIME NO. 372 OF 2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO. 369 OF 2020 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE
STATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO. 7391 OF 2022 ON THE
FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, PONNANI
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN CMP NO. 7391
OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.05.2023 IN
CMP NO. 7391 OF 2022 PASSED BY JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.03.2024 IN
CRL.M.C. NO. 231 OF 2024 PASSED BY HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 981 OF
2024 DATED 05.12.2024 (SUBMITTED BY
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME
BRANCH, MALAPPURAM) IN CRIME NO. 372 OF
2020 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION
BEFORE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
TIRUR