MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN HCP NO. 268 of 2025 Vinoliya

HCP NO. 268 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
HCP NO. 268 of 2025
Vinoliya
815, South Street, South Sathipattu, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District
Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore and 12 others
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor (for R1 to R3, R12 & R13)
Mrs.S.Nadhiya, Legal Aid Counsel (for R4 to R8)
Mr.R.Anbukarasu (for R9)
Mr.V.Parthiban
for Mr.M.Mohamed Saifulla (for R10 & R11)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.Ramesh, J.)
Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel, who had represented the petitioner before this Court earlier, reports that he no longer appears for the petitioner and he undertakes to file a Memo to that effect. The petitioner who is physically present before us, had represented us to appoint a Legal Aid Counsel for her.
2.Accordingly, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Advocate, (Enrol.No.1154/1994), having office at No.279, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104 (Mobile No.9444184899) is requested to act as a Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, who shall assist the Court. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Legal Aid Counsel, as initial remuneration.
3.In the last hearing on 05.08.2025, the fourth respondent who was present in the Court, reported that a child born to the petitioner, through him on 07.06.2025, had died on 05.07.2025 and that they had buried the body.

4.At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to recollect certain submissions made by the petitioner during the course of the earlier proceedings. Initially, when the respondent Police had asserted that apart from the petitioner’s child, who is the detenu in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, she had given birth to a second child, the petitioner had categorically denied the said fact before us and claimed that she never gave birth to a second child. She had also reiterated such a stand during the course of several subsequent hearings also. Ultimately, in the hearing on 15.07.2025, when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had produced the birth certificate of the petitioner’s second child, the fourth respondent had revealed about the death of the child, when it was only 28 days old. We found that the entire truth surrounding birth/death of the child was shrouded with mystery and therefore, we had directed the respondent Police to inquire into the death of the child and report before us.
5.Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had produced a letter from the Village Administrative Officer of Sathipattu, Palapattu, Sirunangaivadi, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District dated 11.08.2025. As per the said letter, the petitioner had given birth to a male child on 07.06.2025 at the Government Hospital, Panruti. It further states that on 04.07.2025, the child had fallen ill and therefore, was rushed to the Government Hospital, Panruti and produced before the emergency ward by the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The doctors therein had reported that the child was brought dead. Thereafter, the child was buried in the morning hours of 05.07.2025, after conducting final rites at the banks of Kedipalam River by the fourth respondent and some
villagers.
6.The third respondent Police had instructed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that when the petitioner and the fourth respondent were informed at the Hospital, that their child had died, the petitioner had ran away with the dead body and refused to subject the body of the child for postmortem. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced a letter of the Duty Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti, dated 12.08.2025, along with a copy of the concerned Register, which ratifies his statement that the child was brought dead by the petitioner and the fourth respondent at 03.00 A.M. of 05.07.2025 and when adviced for postmortem, the mother ran away with the body from the casualty and refused for conduct of postmortem. The letter also states that the child may have died due to possible milk aspiration.
7.We do not approve the manner in which the petitioner had suppressed the existence of her second child. Initially, the petitioner had totally denied of having given birth to a second child and thereafter, the police inquiry revealed that she had given birth to a second child. When the Habeas Corpus Petition was listed on 15.07.2025 and the birth certificate was produced, the fact of the death of the child was also not reported before us. Ultimately, on 05.08.2025, when the matter had come up, the fourth respondent who is said to be the father of the child, appeared in person and stated that the child had died on 04.07.2025 itself. Furthermore, the manner in which the child was taken to the Hospital and the conduct of the petitioner and the fourth respondent thereafter, in having buried the child immediately in an undesignated place for burial and refusing for postmortem also creates suspicion as to the cause of death of the
child.
8.The mode in which the body of the child was buried, creates a suspicion in our minds. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor the fourth respondent, who had accompanied the child to the Government Hospital, had obtained any certificate from the doctors therein with regard to the cause of death. On the other hand, the records produced before us reveals that when the doctors had suggested for conduct of postmortem on the body of the child, the petitioner is reported to have run away from the hospital with the body of her child after refusing to have a postmortem conducted. The petitioner also does not appear to have obtained any certificate or other testimonials to have her child buried in an undesignated burial place. Our suspicion is also due to the claim of the respondent Police that after the child was reported to have died at 03.00 A.M., the petitioner had made arrangements for burying the body at 05.00 A.M.
9.In order to ascertain the cause of death, the first respondent herein namely the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, is called upon to depute a responsible jurisdictional Police Officer, to register a complaint under Section 174 Cr.P.C. with regard to the suspicious death of the child and conduct an inquiry. If need be, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, shall take steps to exhume the body of the petitioner’s second child and present it before the Specialized Forensic Pathologist attached to any Government Hospital for conducting postmortem, as expeditiously as possible. After postmortem, the body of the child shall be buried in a dignified manner at a designated place of burial. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are at liberty to be present during such burial and perform any funeral rites, if they choose to do so.
10.Call the matter on 28.08.2025.
(M.S.R, J.) (V.L.N, J.)
19-08-2025 Sni
Note: Issue Order Copy Today.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Cuddalore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Panruti, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District.
5.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore District.
6.Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Advocate, (Mobile No.9444184899)
(Enrol.No.1154/1994),
Office at No.279, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
HCP No.268 of 2025