Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian has dismissed an appeal seeking the transfer of an ongoing police investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court stated that the apprehensions raised by the petitioner did not meet the threshold required for such an extraordinary intervention.

The petitioner, the wife of the deceased, approached the High Court seeking an order to transfer the investigation of her husband's death from the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the State Police to the CBI. The deceased, a former Additional District Magistrate of Kannur, was found dead by hanging in his official residence on October 15, 2024. The Kannur Town Police initially registered the case under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), later substituting it with Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), after allegations surfaced regarding public humiliation faced by the deceased before his death.

The petitioner alleged that on the evening prior to his death, during a farewell event organized for the deceased, a prominent political figure, P.P. Divya, accused him of corruption regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a fuel outlet. She allegedly threatened to expose him within two days and used video recordings of the event for public dissemination. According to the petitioner, these actions led to the deceased suffering immense mental distress, ultimately resulting in his death.

The petitioner argued that several procedural lapses in the investigation necessitated its transfer to the CBI. The allegations included:

• The inquest was conducted before the petitioner and her family arrived, contrary to procedural requirements.

• The police failed to promptly seize crucial CCTV footage from locations such as the Collectorate, Railway Station, and the deceased’s residence.

• Call Data Records (CDRs) of key individuals, including the District Collector and the accused, were not collected in a timely manner.

• No proper forensic examination was conducted on the ligature used or the deceased’s palm to confirm suicide.

• The SIT initially failed to record statements from the deceased’s family members and key witnesses.

• The accused, being a member of the ruling party, allegedly exerted influence over the investigation.

• The possibility of a suppressed suicide note was not explored.

• The constitution of the SIT was alleged to be unlawful.

The petitioner contended that, given these lapses, a fair and impartial investigation could not be expected from the SIT, warranting an intervention by the CBI.

The High Court examined the petitioner’s claims and examined the case diary. The court stated that transfer of investigation is not an automatic right and is only warranted under exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to instil public confidence. The judgment stated:

“Investigation in a case cannot be transferred merely for the reason that the victim entertains an apprehension that the investigation will not be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. In order to transfer the investigation, the apprehension shall be reasonable and not imaginary.”

The court noted that the SIT had taken multiple investigative steps, including:

• Conducting an inquest in the presence of independent witnesses, including revenue officials.

• Preparing a detailed scene mahazar and submitting it before the court.

• Seizing cellophane pressings from the deceased’s body, chair, and bed, forwarding them for forensic examination.

• Collecting and verifying CDRs of the deceased, the accused, and relevant individuals.

• Recovering digital evidence, including CCTV footage from the Collectorate and Railway Station.

• Recording statements from key witnesses, including government officials present at the farewell function.

• Examining and analysing financial transactions related to the NOC application.

The court found no material evidence suggesting suppression of facts or deliberate inaction on the part of the investigating officers. It observed that merely alleging bias or pointing out minor procedural lapses was insufficient to justify an investigation transfer. The judgment stated:

“A reasonable apprehension means that the apprehension is based on concrete facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the investigation is compromised. The personal feelings of the victim, howsoever genuine, are not enough to warrant a transfer.”

Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the accused’s political influence could affect the investigation, the court noted that the SIT was led by senior IPS officers with no allegations of personal bias. The judgment stated:

“This is not a case where the accusation is against top officials of the State Government or State Police who would be in a position to influence the investigation. Nor is it a case where the CBI, or any other agency, would be in a better position to conduct the investigation in a fair and impartial manner.”

The court also addressed the claim that the deceased’s body was found hanging in a suspicious position, with his feet touching the floor. It noted that forensic evidence, including post-mortem findings, supported the conclusion that death occurred due to hanging. The judgment held that the SIT was directed to consider the possibility of homicidal hanging.

While dismissing the appeal, the court issued the following directives to ensure transparency in the investigation:

1. The SIT must conduct and complete the investigation swiftly, efficiently, and in a fair manner.

2. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Kannur Range must oversee and monitor the investigation.

3. The SIT must submit periodic reports to the DIG detailing progress in the case.

4. The SIT must keep the petitioner informed about developments in the investigation as per Section 193(3)(ii) of BNSS.

5. The investigation must explore the possibility of homicidal hanging as raised by the petitioner.

6. The draft final report must be vetted and approved by the DIG before submission.

7. The final report must be filed only after obtaining approval from the DIG to ensure transparency and accountability.

Case Title: Manjusha K v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16968

Case Number: WA No. 193 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian

[Read/Download order]