Mere Suspicion Of Homicide Not Enough To Transfer Investigation: MP High Court Rejects Father's Plea For CBI Probe Into Son's Death
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a man's plea seeking transfer of probe into his son's death to CBI, noting that a mere suspicion, however grave or father's subjective belief that a homicidal angle exists, cannot replace legally admissible material warranting transfer of investigation.
The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed,
"The material on record indicates that after identification of the deceased through DNA profiling, the investigating agency undertook a detailed investigation by recording statements of all material witnesses, examining call detail records, considering medical and forensic evidence, and analyzing the surrounding circumstances. The conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency that the deceased committed suicide due to emotional distress arising from personal and relational issues is based on evidence collected during investigation. Mere suspicion, however grave, or a subjective belief of the petitioner that a homicidal angle exists, cannot substitute legally admissible material warranting transfer of investigation"
The court further said that the post-mortem report, when read in its entirety, does not by itself justify interference with the investigation or warrant transfer of the case to another agency. It said that though the medical opinion records that the nature of death could not be ascertained and notes injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, such an opinion, by itself, cannot be construed as evidence of homicidal death.
"The absence of a categorical opinion regarding suicide, accident, or homicide does not automatically render the investigation illegal or unfair, particularly when the investigating agency has examined the surrounding circumstances, collected corroborative material, and arrived at a conclusion based on cumulative evidence. Medical opinion is only one component of the investigative process and must be appreciated in conjunction with circumstantial, forensic, and documentary evidence.Furthermore, an inconclusive post-mortem report does not mandate reinvestigation or transfer of investigation unless it is demonstrated that relevant material was deliberately ignored or that the investigation was conducted with mala fide intent. In the present case, no such material has been brought on record to show that the investigating agency suppressed or misinterpreted the medical opinion," it added.
The petitioner, a daily wage labourer, had approached the Court after his son went missing on April 15, 204, shortly before his wedding. The son had informed the family that he was at Gwalior's City Centre and would return shortly, but never did. A missing person report was filed on April 17, 2024.
The petitioner later learnt that his son was in an extra marital affair with a married woman and had allegedly faced threats from her family. The petitioner thus approached the Court through a habeas corpus petition.
On May 20, 2024, the division bench directed the State to seek instructions and produce the corpus. The police officers, however, failed to produce the petitioner's son. Later, the police officers informed the court that the son had committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. The division bench, thereafter, disposed of the petition, noting gross negligence, lack of coordination and serious lapses on the part of the police authorities.
The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the post-mortem report did not support the conclusion of suicide and that the record indicated death due to ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object. Therefore, the police could not have presumed death by suicide.
The court held that no case was made out for the transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The court noted that the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency was based on a detailed investigation, considering medical and forensic evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. It said,
"The mere possibility of an alternative hypothesis, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot form the basis for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, far from undermining the investigation, does not furnish sufficient ground to disbelieve the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency".
The court, thus, dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Ramgopal Sakhwar v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-19656-2025]
For Petitioner: Advocate Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria
For State: Government Advocate Samar Ghuraiya
For CBI: Advocate Ravi Choudhary