Ultimate Aim Of Courts Is To Find The "Truth": Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Exhumation Of Body For Fresh Postmortem

The Writ Petition was filed for Mandamus against respondents who were police officers for not conducting a free and fair investigation into Crime and to handover the case to an independent agency i.e. CBCID for investigation into the matter.

The Petitioner who was the father of the deceased and was aggrieved by the investigation conducted in a Crime filed the Writ Petition. The petitioner's son was found dead in a field. Initially an FIR was registered under Section 174 of CrPC. The contention of the counsel for petitioner was that the death of the petitioner's son was mysterious. He was found dead in a banana plantation without any clothes on his body in the land belonging to one Kommaraju, who had taken the land on lease.

There were some issues between the deceased and the accused and the deceased was working as a farm labour. The grievance of the petitioner was that the deceased had number of injury marks on his dead body and yet the police were satisfied with the classification of death as 'suicide' with the consumption of a poison called 'permethrin'. The petitioner argued that if such a poison was consumed then that would leave mark all over mouth, throat, intestine etc. but that was not checked. Furthermore, the respondents had conducted the investigation at a very slow phase.

The counsel for petitioner also filed material papers which included some close up photographs of the dead body to argue that the doctors did not conduct a proper postmortem.

The counsel for respondent argued that the District Judge who was seized of the matter under the provisions of SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, had the necessary power and authority to monitor the investigation. It was submitted that the petitioner could have approached the said Court for appropriate reliefs. Even after the police filed the final report, the power was given to concerned Court to reopen the matter. The counsel for respondent also contended that petitioner was claiming an extraordinary remedy for order of investigation by third party which can only be given in a rare/exceptional case.

Consideration of Court

The court observed that this case related to the anguish of a father who had lost a grown up under mysterious circumstances. However, the Court has to be very cautious in ordering investigation by a third party after taking it away from the police, who are generally entrusted with these duties.

The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC in which the judge had noted the injuries on the body and came to the conclusion that there was prima facie material available for investigation.

From the Case Diary also, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the medical evidence was not conclusive. From the perusal of Case Diary it was clear that the doctors were not very sure if the death was due to homicide or suicide. Furthermore, it was seen that there were communal rivalries in the village.

In the circumstance, the Court opined that there was a need to exhume the body to conduct a de novo postmortem by a fresh team of qualified doctors.

"In this Court's opinion Medical evidence may help the police in coming to a firm conclusion. The ultimate aim of the Courts; the police, the prosecutors etc., is to find the "truth". No stone should be left unturned in this quest for truth."

The respondent police were directed to approach the Director, AIIMS, Mangalagiri to nominate doctors for the purpose of the fresh postmortem. The police were directed to make all the arrangements for this postmortem.

Case Title : Geddam Bullayya Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 44

Click Here To Read/Download Order