The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 9) ordered further investigation into the death of violinist Balabhaskar, who had a fatal car accident in 2018. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 568]

Justice G. Girish allowed the plea preferred by the late musician's parents and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to entrust the investigation to an officer of proven integrity, not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.

The Court noted that in a 2022 judgment, a co-ordinate Bench had pointed out 20 suspicious circumstances in the case and had ordered further investigation but what followed was a 'casual and lackadaisical' probe by an officer of a lower rank, who made the same conclusions as his predecessor.

"It is quite unfortunate to note that the Central Bureau of Investigation which was expected to ponder its serious attention to the aforesaid 20 suspicious circumstances, took the matter in a casual and lackadaisical manner, and deputed an Inspector, lower in rank to the earlier Investigating Officer, to conduct the further investigation...The aforesaid casual and perfunctory mode of investigation was adopted by the Inspector of Central Bureau of Investigation only because of the reason that he cannot supersede the findings of the earlier Investigating Officer who was superior in rank," the Court observed.

The Court further noted that in the 2022 judgment, it was observed that the CBI had accepted the statements of witnesses, against whom suspicious were raised, without confronting them with the material collected. It added:

"In spite of such a serious observation in the said order, a lower level officer embarked upon the further investigation in a manner more vulnerable than the flawed investigation pointed out by this Court in the aforesaid order, by getting the inconsistencies reconciled through additional statements of the witnesses under scanner of suspicion, by affording them an opportunity to deny and vary the earlier statements...The Inspector is seen to have obtained further statements from the witnesses concerned either denying their previous statements which were under the pointer of suspicion, or trying to evade confrontation by relying on inability to memorise. In either case, the Inspector is seen to have accepted what the above witnesses stated as gospel truth."

The Court also pointed out to several infirmities in the subsequent investigation and opined that further investigation by an officer of higher rank into the suspicions highlighted in the 2022 judgment was necessary.

It also observed that the subsequent investigation was totally against the purport and objectives of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the precedents laid down by the Apex Court and High Courts.

Background

Bhalabhaskar and his family met with a car accident on September 25, 2018 while returning from a temple in Thrissur. His 1.5 year-old daughter died on the spot and Balabhaskar succumbed to his injuries a week later. His wife recovered after a month in the hospital.

Within a few hours of the musician and his wife were admitted in the hospital, one Mr. Prakash Thampi, a close friend and manager of Balabhaskar, came took hold of Balabhaskar's phone and kept it in his custody.

The State police registered a criminal case against the driver of the car for negligent and rash driving. Later on, Prakash Thampi and his associates were arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in connection with gold smuggling.

While so, cine/mimicri artist Kalabhavan Soby George made a disclosure that he had seen a group of persons involved in gold smuggling, attacking the Balabhaskar's vehicle. This led to the investigation to be handed over to the Crime Branch, which also concluded that the incident was purely an accident.

Considering the petitioners' objections to the conclusion, the probe was was handed over to the CBI on July 27, 2020 and an additional Superintendent of Police conducted the investigation. The CBI also came to the conclusion that the case was a pure accident case. Then also the petitioners sought for further investigation but the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the same. In 2022, petitions were preferred by the petitioners and Soby George challenging the denial of their requests.

A co-ordinate Bench expressed dissatisfaction in the CBI's investigation and ordered for further investigation into 20 suspicious circumstances pointed out. The investigating officer was directed to identify if there was any conspiracy behind the accident. However, instead of the same investigating officer or a superior officer, another officer of lower rank conducted further investigation and reiterated the findings made earlier.

Once again, the petitioners sought for further investigation before the CJM

Counsel for the petitioners: T.M. Raman Kartha, Manju R. Kartha, Sneha Brigit Prince, Greeshma T.G., Gowri Gopinath, Abin K. Sebastian

Counsel for the respondents: K.P. Satheesan (Sr.) - Special Public Prosecutor, Sameer S. - Public Prosecutor