Krishnan vs. State of Kerala

Krishnan vs. State of Kerala


In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
W.P.C. No. 10265 of 2019
1. Krishnan
2. Balamani, w/o. Krishnan
3. Sathyanarayanan
4. Latha, w/o. Sathyanarayanan
1. The State of Kerala

2. The State Police Chief
3. The SPE/CBI (Special Police Establishment)/Central Bureau of Investigation)
4. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Judgement
30th September, 2019
Bhaskaran Pillai Sudheendra Kumar, J.

Facts of the case:

1. The Petitioners are the parents of the two youth Congress leaders namely, kripesh and Sarath Lal who were brutally murdered by CPM (Communist Party of India, Marxists) workers on 17.02.2019 at a place called kallyottu in Periya village, Kasargod.

2. The Investigation was handed over to Deputy Superintendent Police, Crime Branch on 18.02.2019 as per the order of the District Police Chief.

3. The Autopsy was conducted at the Medical College, Periya. Accused persons were arrested on their surrender and on the disclosure of the accused; G.I. (Galvanised Iron) pipes and swords were recovered from the well.

4. Final report was filed before the court by the investigation team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

5. As the petitioners believed that the investigation was not fair the Writ Petition was filed as to issue a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the case.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the Investigating officer filed the charge sheet and the reports blindly without proper and effective investigation?

2. Whether the High court has the Power to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation?

Ratio Decidendi :

1. The investigating officer did not incline to question the Forensic Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased persons, even though the weapons were readily available at time of recording the statement of Forensic Surgeon.

2. Statements by the Investigating Officer were contrary and inconsistent with the charge-sheet filed by the same officer.

3. Though the post-mortem certificates stated that the injuries were not caused by GI (Galvanised Iron) pipes, Investigating Officer filed a report before the court stating the contrary.

4. The Investigating officer refused to believe the CW (Cooperative Witness) at very peak stage of the case.

Relevant Cases Referred:

1. In Sivakumar E. v. Union of India and others relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and others and held that the court can direct investigation by CBI or some other investigating agency for the purpose of ensuring that there is fair investigation and a fair trial. If there is no fair investigation, there cannot have a fair trial.

2. The Apex Court in Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and held that when the High Court after considering the materials on record comes to a conclusion that such materials do disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI, an order directing CBI investigation will be justified.


1. The Investigating officer’s negligent behaviour in various instances gave enough proof to the high court that they were not doing their duty sincerely and were taking decisions and filing reports on just little and not enough information. The Court was satisfied that the charge sheet filed on the investigation was sham and unfair and the reports were filed blindly without any proper investigation. The court even had strong reservations about the impartiality and unfairness due to the political fallout. The writ Petition was allowed and the investigation was transferred to CBI.

2. Powers conferred by Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers.

3. The extraordinary power should be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.

Edited by Sree Ramya

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje 

Shruti Shekatkar
I’m Shruti Shekatkar, a 4th-year law student pursuing BLS (Basic Legal Science) LLB from Government Law College, Mumbai. My Areas of interest include General Corporate, Banking and Finance, and Capital Market. My free time is occupied by reading books and articles, binging shows, listening to music and of course on social media. I would like to consider myself a good researcher through previous internship experiences. I work best in a team when the seniors and fellow team members are supportive and engaging. I would like to see myself in coming future to be a person who has in spite of her legal career has done her part to “woke” the world and make it a better place to live in.