'Abject Failure' : Kerala High Court Criticises CBI Probe Of Death Of Malabar Cements Whistleblower; Asks Director To Form New Team For Further Investigation

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation into the death of Malabar Cements whistleblower V. Saseendran and his two minor sons with due seriousness and to constitute a new investigating team under the supervision of a senior and competent officer. 

Justice P. Somarajan pulled up the investigating agency for filing the supplementary report by way of an eye wash without addressing the relevant issues involved in the crime. 

Hence, in the given circumstances, I am of the view that one of the most reputed investigating agencies in India - CBI, should be more vigilant while acting on investigation pertaining to the very serious offences and it shall not be an eye wash. The entire investigation taints and tarnishes the well deserved reputation of the CBI as a premier investigating agency.

Thereby, the Court directed that: 

Necessarily, the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation shall take up the matter with due alacrity to the gravity and seriousness so as to constitute a new investigation team under the supervision of a senior and competent officer, who has necessary expertise in the field and is not gullible.

V. Saseendran and his two minor sons aged 11 and 8 years, were found hanging in the same room in a structure attached to the roof of their residence in 2011. 

Two Criminal Revision Petitions were moved against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the application moved for conducting further investigation into the case. 

The High Court, however, opined that there is a failure on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to go into the various glaring improbabilities especially when the matter concerns the death of three persons. 

The Court observed that the deficiencies because of which the final report was submitted earlier was rejected, were neither properly investigated nor were satisfactorily explained by the investigating agency. The Court opined that the supplementary report that was filed by the investigating agency was filed by concocting up certain hypotheses, that too, without any legal or factual basis. 

During the course of the investigation, evidence was collected with regard to the alleged harassment and insults faced by Saseendran as a result of a feud with the private contractor V.M. Radhakrishnan, the then Managing Director Sundaramoorthy and the then Executive Secretary Sooriyanarayanan of Malabar Cements. The case set up by the investigation is that as a result of the feud and harassment, one of the victims, Saseendran submitted his resignation and decided to kill his two minor sons and committed suicide. 

Initially, an FIR was registered arraying the deceased Saseendran as the prime accused alleging offence under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 174. Subsequently, another FIR was registered based on the statement given by the wife of the deceased Saseendran, instead of conducting the investigation on the basis of the earlier FIR. However, in the second FIR registered, the offence alleged was restricted only to Section 306 & 506(1) r/w Section 34 IPC excluding the alleged offence of commission of murder under Section 302 IPC included in the first FIR.

The very registration of the second FIR selectively excluding some of the offences mentioned in the first FIR would speak volumes of what transpired and was actually perpetrated by the officers who had registered the respective FIRs. This shows the decadence and the loss of moral values prevalent in our society, the Court remarked. 

On the direction of the High Court to consolidate the investigation, the final report was filed which was subsequently rejected. Thereafter, a supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC was filed without addressing the grounds raised. The Court opined that even after almost 10 years have elapsed, however, the investigation hasn't progressed. 

Calling it a flagrant and brazen miscarriage of justice, the Court criticized the supplementary report as it was submitted without referring to the relevant questions involved. 

The supplementary report submitted is illustrative of what was actually done by the officer and instead of placing the evidence collected, he had gone into the extent of making a judgment of his own, that too, for the purpose of introducing a cooked-up supplementary report, the Court remarked. 

The Court observed that the investigating agency overlooked the fact that the house was found to be locked from the outside at the time when the wife of the deceased came to the house. Further, the Court observed that the investigating agency failed to explain the antemortem injuries found on the body of one of the deceased or the blood stains found on the walls of the room or how he would have been able to hang both the children one after another without having help from others in the light of the body weight of both the children and the nature of the ligature used.

The case advanced by the investigating agency that they have volunteered and consented to their homicide seems to be so fallacious and is hilarious like a sheep being willingly led to a slaughterhouse, Justice Somarajan commented. 

The Court, therefore, observed that the apprehension in the mind of the defacto complainant and the petitioner is well placed especially when the supplementary report suffers from very big drawbacks and deficiencies in the investigation.

Thereby, the Court observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation has to take up the issue with due seriousness. 

I hope that there will be some positive steps from the agency against the delinquent officers, who have done the mischief, the Court further added. 

The Court thereby allowed both the Criminal Revision Petitions.

Senior Advocate Grashious Kuriakose and Advocates C. S. Sanish and John K. George appeared for the Revision Petitioner. 

DSGI Advocate Manu S and Public Prosecutor Advocate S. Unnikrishnan appeared for the Respondents. 

Case Title: Nandakumar T.P v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sanal Kumar v. State 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 622

Click Here To Read/Download The Order