Â
Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
1. The petitioner is the mother of one Rajalekshmi who was found dead by hanging at the residence of her husband on 16/12/2021. A crime was
registered by the Kattakkada police station u/s 174 of Cr.P.C for unnatural death on the basis of the statement given by the sister of the deceased viz.,
Reshma B.R. as Crime No.2960/2021. The 4th respondent who is the SI of Police, Kattakkada conducted the investigation.
 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this court by filing the above Crl.M.C. alleging that the 4th respondent is not conducting a fair
investigation. According to the petitioner, the husband of the deceased harassed the deceased both physically and mentally demanding more dowry
and it was on account of the said persistent harassment, the deceased committed suicide. In short, their case is that this is a clear case of dowry
death.
3. However, the 4th respondent after conducting investigation found that the deceased committed suicide due to some depression and nobody is
responsible for her death and a final report was filed to that effect on 18/7/2022.
4. I have heard Sri.Akash, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor made available to me the entire case diary including the final report. I have perused the same.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the materials collected during investigation would clearly show that the husband of the
deceased had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment soon before her death demanding more dowry and it was on account of the said
harassment and cruelty, the deceased committed suicide and this is a fit case where offence u/s 304 B of IPC should have been charged against the
husband of the deceased. The counsel further submitted that 4th respondent who conducted investigation did not conduct any investigation worth the
name and the investigation was conducted only to help the real culprit.
7. The First Information Statement was given by the sister of the deceased. The statements of parents of the deceased as well as another sister of the
deceased were recorded by the police during investigation. In the FI Statement of the de facto complainant as well as in the statements of the parents
and the sister of the deceased, there are clear allegations that the husband of the deceased subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment in
connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. Few neighbours also gave statement in support of the same.
8. This is a case where the death was taken place within a period of three years of the marriage. Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, deals
with presumption as to dowry death. The presumption under the said provision is mandatory in nature. It says that, when the question is whether a
person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It
appears that the 4th respondent failed to take note of the relevant provisions of the statute under the Indian Evidence Act mentioned above and also
Section 304 B of IPC and the clear statement given by the sister and parents of the deceased.
9. A detailed statement dated 22/7/2022 has been given by SHO, Kattakkada Police Station in the above Crl.M.C. In paragraph 8 it is seen stated that
the close relatives of the deceased were the only witnesses among the witnesses questioned who stated that the cause of death was because of the
harassment for dowry by her husband. When harassment takes place in connection with dowry demand inside the matrimonial home, we cannot
expect independent witnesses. The question is whether the statement given by the close relatives is believable or not. That apart, the inquest report
would show that there were injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased other than the ligature mark on the neck. This has also not been
taken into consideration by the 4th respondent.
 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that final report submitted by the 4th respondent dropping further proceedings in Crime
No.2960/2021 cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set aside.
11. The Dy.S.P Kattakada is directed to reopen the investigation and hand it over to another officer in the rank of Circle Inspector of Police and
conduct proper investigation in the light of the findings in this order and file final report thereafter. The Dy.S.P. Kattakada shall supervise the
investigation. Forward a copy of this order to Dy.S.P. Kattakkada.
The Crl.M.C is disposed.
