In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking the transfer of the investigation pending with the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli (SP), to ensure a fair, impartial, and proper investigation into the unnatural death of the petitioner’s minor daughter, a Single Judge Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi directed for the investigation to be transferred and to keep the investigation transparent with the petitioner while disposing of the petition.
On 24-03-2026, the 5-year-old deceased, studying in Upper Kindergarten in a private school, was found dead inside the school campus. The management claimed that two persons who came to meet the school staff drove their car in a negligent manner inside the school premises and hit the child. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal case, which was pending investigation, but, being unsatisfied, filed the present petition.
The petitioner’s grievance was that he had not been informed about the incident till her personally saw the child’s dead body in the hospital. The petitioner asserted that, even though the school administration stated the accident occurred at about 3:30 PM, the child’s bag contained uneaten lunch, despite the lunch break being from 12 noon till 1 PM. The petitioner stated that he was also aggrieved that the CCTV footage had not been shown to him and that the police had not taken any steps to recover it.
It was further alleged that the school management had approached him and handed over Rs. 20 lakhs, requesting that he not file any suit for damages. Even though the petitioner refused to accept the same, his father-in-law took the amount and was pressured to sign a bond not to make any claims.
The petitioner also contended that, even though the police had been informed before the petitioner received information, they were more concerned with protecting the school administration than with seizing the car involved in the incident, as they did not file a First Information Report until the petitioner gave them a written complaint for the same.
The respondent police submitted that they had identified the accused and recovered the CCTV footage. They also found that the watchman had objected to the car entering the premises as students were about to come out.
The Court said that education was once considered holy but had now become a lucrative business. It was noted that the school management was also running the hospital in which the child was admitted. It was stated that, since there were already 20 police personnel on the school premises when the petitioner arrived, the school management would have informed them. The Court said that the police ought to have received the complaint from the school management and registered an FIR regarding the incident, rather than waiting for a formal complaint from the father.
Further, the Court said that when CCTV cameras were present in the school, the police personnel could have easily identified the number plate of the offending vehicle, and that the school management could also have provided the said information, but they had intentionally suppressed it. The Court stated that it was highly unbelievable that the accused had escaped from the school after the incident, even though the watchman had objected to the car entering the school premises. It was noted that the accused had entered the school campus to meet the son of the school correspondent, and that the management had allowed him to escape after murdering the child. The Court also had doubts about the police action, as the FIR was filed belatedly, without naming the accused, and without the offending vehicle being seized.
Hence, the Court found it fit that the investigation be transferred and directed the SP, Tenkasi, to withdraw the case from respondent 2 and entrust it to a sincere police officer, either ranked as a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an Inspector of Police, to ensure a fair and proper investigation. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court said that if the State has the power of investigation, it must be exercised with diligence. Considering the manner in which the present case had been investigated, the Court directed the new IO to provide the petitioner with a copy of the CCTV footage.
The new IO was directed to determine the exact time of the incident and to furnish the progress of the investigation, as well as the postmortem certificate, to the petitioner to develop his confidence in the investigation. The Court refrained from transferring the investigation to the CB-CID with the hope that a proper investigation would be conducted. However, it was held that the petitioner would be at liberty to move this Court if the investigation was not conducted properly.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. S. Parthiban
For Respondents – Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh (GA)
