SASI THOMAS Vs. STATE TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 24,2006

SASI THOMAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ATUL GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-184] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA BHIMRAO ATHWALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-172] [REFERRED TO]
ANDREW JORDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
PARAM PAL SINGH GANDHI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK BASSAN VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
G MURUGAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-509] [REFERRED]
SAMAJ PARIVARTAN SAMUDAYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
NAVINA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
C P MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGYASINGH CHANDRAPALSINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
RESHAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
NUPUR TALWAR VS. C B I DELHI [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
VINUBHAI HARIBHAI MALAVIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK BASSAN VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURI VS. KUNAL SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI BHAN KARWARIYA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-269] [REFERRED TO]
WE THE PEOPLE VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-147] [REFERRED TO]
D C DAVID VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEZ PARWAZ & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
KALPESH H THAKKER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-4-210] [REFERRED TO]
S ANTONY JEYABALAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE; SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-495] [REFERRED]
ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
A RAMALINGAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
Anil Kumar Tiwary @ Anil Tiwary VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-2-133] [REFERRED TO]
SARVESH KUMAR VS. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
M KARTHIKEYAN VS. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CBCID; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-641] [REFERRED]
ANIL KUMAR TIWARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH SUDAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-424] [REFERRED TO]
N.K. GANGULY VS. C.B.I., NEW DELHI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL ALIAS BHANWARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-7-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)One Achamma (deceased) was married with Jose Paul Respondent No. 4 herein. After their marriage, they went to USA. Jose Paul was a Vice-President in a reputed bank in USA. The deceased was a nurse. They obtained naturalized citizenship in USA. Allegedly, the couple was not leaving a happy married life. Respondent No. 4 developed intimacy with one divorcee, viz., Lissy P.C. The deceased thereafter came back to India with her children on five years visa. She purchased a house in the year 1994. In 1996, Respondent No. 4 also came back to India. Appellant is her younger brother. She died on 24.01.1998. She was stated to have died of heart failure. Respondent No. 5 gave a certificate to that effect. The appellant made complaints to various authorities whereupon the body was exhumed on 22.04.1998. Thereupon only a post mortem was conducted. A final opinion was given on 18.06.1998 stating that she died of Organo Phosphorous Insecticide poisoning. No injuries on her person could have been found as mentioned in the report. The appellant contended that the dead body had injuries.
(3.)One Shri Durairaj, Inspector of Police who investigated into the matter issued a final form stating that the deceased could have committed suicide.
A writ petition came to be filed by the appellant herein praying that further investigation in terms of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be directed to be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By an order dated 14.07.2000, further investigation was directed to be done by CB-CID. They submitted another final report on 19.11.2002 charging Respondent No. 4 for commission of offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 and Respondent No. 5 for commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.