[Sharon Murder Case] SIT Head Specifically Entrusted With Investigation Of Crime, Can File Final Report U/S 173 CrPC: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch heading a special investigating team that was specifically entrusted with the investigation of a crime is competent to file the final report under Section 173 CrPC. The issue before the Court was whether the head of a Special Investigation Team, constituted to investigate a crime, not being...
The Kerala High Court stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch heading a special investigating team that was specifically entrusted with the investigation of a crime is competent to file the final report under Section 173 CrPC.
The issue before the Court was whether the head of a Special Investigation Team, constituted to investigate a crime, not being the officer-in-charge of the police station could file a final report under section 173 CrPC.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the District Crime Branch was a specialized district-level investigative wing that aids with investigating crimes of a sensational nature at the district level. Relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Bihar and Another v. Lalu Singh (2014), the Court stated thus:
“…it is evident that the head of the investigation team, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the District Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural and who was specifically entrusted to conduct the investigation and to ensure the filing of the final report by the District Police Chief was competent to file the final report, being an officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station.”
Background
Sharon Raj was allegedly poisoned by Greeshma to weasel out of their romantic relationship. Her mother and maternal uncle are also arrayed as co-accused for allegedly abetting the crime and for destroying the evidence. The crime was registered under Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 364 (kidnapping or abducting to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence and giving false evidence to screen offender) and 203 (giving false information) r/w section 34 (criminal act done in pursuance of common intention) of IPC.
Initially, the crime was registered by the Parasalla Police Station and considering the sensational nature of the issue, the investigation was handed over to a special investigating team by the District Police Chief. The special investigating team was headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch.
The present petition was moved by the accused persons challenging the final report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch. alleging that he had no jurisdiction to file the final report.
The petitioners contended that as per Section 173 CrPC, the final report could only be submitted by an officer in charge of a police station, that is, the station house officer even if the crime was investigated by a special investigating team.
Court Findings
On analysing the provisions of CrPC and the Kerala Police Act, the Court stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police is superior to the sub-inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police.
Relying upon R T Kapur and Others v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kiron and Others (1961) and State of Andhra Pradesh v A S Peter (2008), the Court stated superior officer who was entitled to exercise powers in charge of a police station was entitled to conduct an investigation. Referring to Kuriachan Chacko & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Joy John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 604), the Court stated a superior officer could direct his subordinates to conduct an investigation and submit a report even if an initial final report was already filed.
The Court thus concluded that “Therefore, the Dy.S.P., Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural - head of the investigation team, in the instant case, was a superior officer to the station house officer, Parassala, which is within the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram Rural.”
Further, the Court stated that crime detachment units in the state redesignated as the District Crime Branch were created vide a government order for investigating sensational crimes at the district level. It found that the government order would entitle superior officers to entrust the investigation to officers specially chosen by the District Police Chief.
In the facts of the case, the special investigating team was constituted by the District Police Chief. Thus, it stated that the final report filed by the head of the investigating team was legally valid and could not be found faulty.
“On a perusal of the general order of the Government creating the District Crime Branch and the order of the District Police Chief (Rural) dated 04.01.2023, it is evident that the requirement contemplated under section 173(3) Cr.P.C in respect of general or special order has been complied with. Viewed in the above perspective, the filing of the final report by the head of the special investigation team, i.e., Sri.V.T.Rasith, Dy.S.P., Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, cannot be found to be faulty in the circumstances of the case”, stated the Court.
Accordingly, it dismissed the case.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Satheesh Mohanan, V.S.Thoshin, Sunil V., Vishnu V.H. , .Sreejith S. Nair, Mahima
Counsel for Respondent: ADGP Gracious Kuriakose
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Case title: GREESHMA @ SREEKUTTY
Case number: CRL.MC NO. 153 OF 2024