AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sethuraman, J.—This is a petition under S. 482, Crl. P.C, by the four petitioners who are accused 1 to 4 in P.R.C. No. 14 of 1984 on the
file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruvadanai. All the four petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town in
Crime No. 115 of 1984 on the file of the Devakottai Taluk Police Station, for offences under Ss. 302 and 201 read with S. 34, I.P.C. They had
been committed to take their trial for the said offences before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. At that stage, they have
come forward with this petition to quash the committal.
Petitioners 3 and 4 are sisters and their husbands who are said to be brothers are stated to be employed in Malaysia and petitioners 1 and 2 are
alleged to be doing agricultural work in the lands belonging to the petitioners 3 and 4. The deceased in this case, one Dhanam, young girl of about
18 years, unmarried, was the daughter of one Subramaniam, step-brother of the husbands of petitioners 3 and 4. She was working in the house of
petitioners 3 and 4, and according to the prosecution, she became aware of the immoral activities of petitioners 3 and 4 and since the husband of
the third petitioner had come home during the month of January,1984, petitioners 3 and 4 apprehended that she might divulge their activities to the
husband of the third petitioner and so they made up their mind to do away with the said Dhanam.
Further, according to the prosecution, at about 1:30 a.m. on 19th January, 1984, one Srinivasan, son of Pichai, Karuppan, son of Kuppan,
Kattappan son of Nachiappan, all belonging to Periyakarai village in Devakottai taluk, who happened to be near about the house of one Vadivelu,
the younger brother of petitioners 3 and 4, to catch mice, after catching mice, were coming near that place at Panangattanvayal and near the old
rice mill there, they had spread the net and were seated there and at that time from the house of Vadivelu, they heard a groaning noise and after
some time, they saw all the four petitioners in front of the house of the said Vadivelu and a little later they heard the noise and the voices heard by
them were female voices and all the petitioners were carrying a corpse towards the place where the three persons were sitting and according to
them, they were hiding themselves in Kattu Karuvelu and those four persons could not notice them and the four petitioners took the corpse and put
it in the Oorani and returned to their house. Those three persons also returned to their houses and on the next morning, the four petitioners took the
dead body of Dhanam and had placed the same near the Oorani, but they did not inform about it to any one out of fear. Out of three persons,
Srinivasan son of Pichai, is shown to have given the report to the police on 29th June, 1984 and a reading of the complaint would disclose that on
that day, namely, 26th June, 1984, persons belonging to Periyakarai, Panangattanvayal and Kongivayal had gathered and asked about the truth of
the occurrence and accordingly, he came forward to give that information to the police. On the basis of the said information given by the said
Srinivasan, the case had been registered and investigation had been taken up and charge sheet had been filed.
Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to point out that earlier there was a case registered on the file of the very same Devakottai Taluk
Police Station in first information report No. 29 of 1984 dated 28th February, 1984 whereunder Subramaniam, the father of deceased Dhanam,
and nineteen others were charged for the offence under S. 176, I.P.C., alleging that on 19th January, 1984 at about 6 a.m., at Panangattanvayal
village, the first accused Subramaniam, father of the said Dhanam, without giving information to the police about the drowning of Dhanam in the
Oorani, joining with others, had cremated the body of Dhanam and accordingly they had committed the offence punishable under S. 176. I.P.C.,
and it was submitted before me that the said Subramaniam, father of Dhanam, pleaded guilty to the charge and he was found guilty of the said
offence and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984 by the learned Judicial II class Magistrate, Tiruvadanai. The case
against others is said to be pending since they are contesting. It is also to be noted that the said S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984 arose on the basis of an
anonymous petition shown to have been sent by some ""good persons"" of the village. It appears that on 21st January, 1984, the Sub Inspector of
Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, had received the said anonymous petition wherein it had been alleged that on 19th January, 1984,
Thursday, at about 7 a.m. a body was found floating in the Oorani in Panangattuvayal and people had come to know about it and it was the body
of Dhanam, aged about 18, and the said Dhanam was working in the house of one Mani of Malaysia, husband of the third petitioner herein, and
because of the poor circumstances, she was so working and stayed in the house of the third petitioner and it had been further alleged in that
petition that the third petitioner by hiring some others had committed the murder and it was not a case of suicide. The said murder had been
committed with the active assistance of one Vedamuthan of Kallikudi, the petitioner No. 2, and further according to the said petition, the
occurrence had taken place in the new house that was being constructed behind the house of the third petitioner and death had been caused by
trampling upon the neck and the body had been disposed of in the Oorani at about 3 a.m., and on the next morning, in the presence of elders of
the village, the body had been taken and stating that it was a case of suicide, the body was cremated. Further, according to the said petition, the
elders of the village had been influenced with money and arrack and the persons of good behavior could not do anything and such of those persons
were also away from the village. The reason for the said murder, according to the petition, was the apprehension of the third petitioner about the
divulging of her immoral conduct to her husband who had come then from Malaysia, by the deceased Dhanam. Copies of the said petition are
shown to have been marked to the Honorable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Inspector-General of Police, the District Collector of
Ramanathapuram at Madurai and the Revenue Divisional Officer of Devakottai one Krishnaswami, Inspector of Devakottai Taluk Police Station is
said to have taken up the investigation and according to the said investigation, the deceased who had gone to Oorani to take water at about 6
A.M. on 19.1.1984 drowned in the Oorani and the father of the deceased or the nineteen others who are charged, without giving any information
to the police, cremated her body. While that was so, subsequently on 29.6.1984, the present case had been registered and after investigation, the
petitioners are shown to have been committed to take their trial.
The petitioners have come forward with several contentions stating that the version put forward by the three witnesses shown as P. Ws.1 to 3 is
highly unbelievable and unnatural and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are all from a different village known as Periakarai
and not from Panangattanvayal village and even in the first information report shown to have been given by Srinivasan, there is no mention about
the names of the villages from the three villages who had convened a meeting on 29.6.1984 for enquiring into the real cause of death of deceased
Dhanam. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a mystery as to how those so-called elders happened to
convene a meeting for the said purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no mention whatsoever in the charge-sheet as
to who were the persons who had convened the meeting and in the charge-sheet, no witness has been cited as such to speak about the convening
of such meeting and about P.W.1 and others coming forward at a late stage to speak the truth, if at all it had been convened in such manner.
It is also contended that in the first place, even according to the prosecution, when the body had been cremated, there is absolutely no evidence
to show that the petitioner or anybody else for that matter, committed the murder of the said Dhanam and having regard to the earlier charge-sheet
against the father of the deceased, Dhanam. and others on the allegation that Dhanam had drowned in the Oorani and without informing the police,
her body was cremated, the prosecution has come forward with the charge under Ss. 302 and 201, I.P.C, without any basis. It was also submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier case during investigation, the village munsif of Panangattuvayal had been shown to have
been examined and according to him though he happened to be away from the village on the relevant date, namely, 19th January, 1984, he had
come to know about the occurrence and the father of deceased Dhanam had informed him that Dhanam was suffering from fits and she was
drowned in the Oorani and death bad occurred and to that effect he had made an entry in the birth and death register and had also taken the
signature of the father of the deceased girl. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that petitioners 1 and 2 have been shown as
witnesses in S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984 and petitioners 3 and 4 have been neither shown as accused or as witnesses in that case. Learned counsel
for the petitioners also submitted that all the three witnesses shown as P. Ws.1 to 3 would consistently say as if out of fear they did not inform any
one else about what they had seen the previous night and yet they had chosen to come forward to say what they had seen long after five months. It
was also pointed out that they have also stated that even though police visited the village on 27.1.1984 itself, they did not inform the matter even to
the police. In this connection, learned counsel also pointed out that their explanation now on the ground of fear they did inform cannot at all be
countenanced by Courts and the Courts cannot take their evidence into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that
though during the relevant time the husband of the third petitioner was shown to have been present very much in the village, he had not been
examined and likewise, Vadivelu in whose house P. Ws.1 to 3 have heard or shown to have been heard the groaning noise had not been
examined. It is to be pointed out that Subramaniam, father of the deceased is residing in Kottaivayal and there is no indication, whatsoever through
whom he had come to know about his daughter''s corpse being found floating on the morning of 19th January, 1984 in the village Oorani and at
what time he came to the village. In this connection, it may also be pointed out as to whether a father, who had lost his daughter in such manner, if
at all he had seen the body of his daughter floating in the Oorani and taken from the Oorani, would keep quite if there had been any suspicion
regarding her death. There had been no attempt during investigation in this case to show that the deceased Dhanam was not suffering from fits to
eliminate the reason shown to have been given by the father to the village munsif for making an entry in the death register. It is also to be pointed
out that one Periasami Ambalam of Panangattanvayal is stated to have come upward with a version during investigation that on 31.1.1984, the
Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, visited the village and at that time, it was represented that action should be taken against the
petitioners for which the Inspector is shown to have stated that since the body had been cremated and as there is no proof regarding the offence,
no action could be taken against them. When such is the version put forward and having regard to the fact that in the month of March, 1984 (8th
March, 1984), the Taluk Inspector having chosen to prosecute the father as well as nineteen others for the offence under S. 176, I.P.C., it is not
known as to how the prosecution has come forward with this case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that
witnesses, Karuppiah and Gnanasambandam, shown as P. Ws. 4 and 5 in the charge sheet, and who have also come forward stating that they had
heard the noise from the place near this house of Vadivelu, had simply kept quiet even after coming to know that the body that was taken,
happened to be the body of the deceased. In this connection, it has to be pointed out that the said Karuppiah has also come forward with the
version during investigation that he represented to the three villagers that they must convene a meeting and should enquire the matter. While he has
come forward to state in such manner, he has not further stated that as to who were all the person who assembled in such manner and it will be
significant to point out that no mention had been made that P.W.1 or for that purpose, P. Ws.2 and 3 in the said meeting, came forward to disclose
the truth and in pursuance of the same, P.W. 1 had been asked to give information to the police; It was also pointed out that P.W. 5 was also
charge-sheeted in S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984, but now as a witness in this case, he is shown to have come forward with a version during
investigation as if he had asked one Swaminathan of that village to report the matter to the police, and that he had informed what he had seen
during night to Swaminathan and he went to Devakottai to purchase vegetables, but when he returned at about 12 noon, and enquired
Swaminathan, he came to know that four petitioners had taken out the corpse and cremated the body.
Without multiplying such inconsistencies and baseless versions put forward by the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet in this case, it has to be
stated that on a careful consideration of the materials available, I feel that the prosecution has come forward with the case against the petitioners
without any acceptable material and I feel the materials on record cannot at all be said to be furnishing any legal basis for committing the petitioners
to take the trial for such a grave offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the decisions reported in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, , and Bhiku Ram v.
Delhi Municipality 1977 Crl. L.J. 1995 . In the decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, , the Supreme Court has
pointed out that in the exercise of power under S. 482, Crl. P.C, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to
be quashed. It is also pointed out therein that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused,
the Court possesses comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record, if
unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can reasonably be possible.
In the decision reported in Bhiku Ram Jain etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, rendered by the Delhi High Court, which relates
to a case instituted on a private complaint, the learned Judges of the Delhi High Court while dealing with the provisions under Ss. 482 and 397,
Crl. P.C, have observed that S. 482, Crl. P.C, preserves the inherent power of the High Court which inhere in it, because of its very constitution
and does not confer any new power. Inherent Power of the High Court is different and stands apart from its powers to revise the orders of
Subordinate Courts as envisaged in S. 397(2), Crl. P.C, which bars a revision against an interlocutory order. It is also further stated that S. 397(2)
cannot be said to be a bar on the High Court, exercising its inherent power to interfere when serious exceptional and unusual features in the case
brought before it warrant such an interference and to allow the trial to proceed in such a case where charge has been framed or process issued
against the accused person by a Magistrate where no charge should have been framed or process issued, would amount to allowing mock trial to
proceed with the inevitable result that the trial would end in an acquittal.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State contended that having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been committed to
take their trial and also on the materials available on record, the committal cannot be quashed and it is open to the petitioners to take the trial and
ultimately if the evidence offered by the prosecution is not acceptable, the trial Court may acquit them. Learned Government Advocate
representing the State also submitted the decision reported in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, . In the said decision, their Lordships of the
Supreme Court while dealing with S. 561A of Crl. P.C, 1988, have dealt with the nature and scope of the said section and therein it had been
pointed out that the said power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by other provisions of the Code, and that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was further pointed out that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be
tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage.
Further pointing out to some of the categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings can and should be exercised, the
categories of cases have been mentioned therein as follows:--
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the Criminal Proceeding in respect of the offence
alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category;
(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or
the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not;
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in
support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear
in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with
the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In
exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or
not. That is the function of the trial magistrate and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court''s inherent jurisdiction and
contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence - the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.
In the category No. 3 pointed out by their Lordships, it has been stated that in dealing with that class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the
accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation and in exercising the
jurisdiction under S. 561A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not and that that
is the duty of the trial Magistrate and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court''s inherent jurisdiction and contend that
on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the accusation against the accused would not be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the decision rendered earlier by the Supreme Court had been taken into consideration in the decision reported in State of Karnataka
Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, .
Bearing in mind the well laid down principles by the Supreme Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the case against the petitioners, even if the
entire material on record is taken into consideration, will not constitute the offences alleged against them. Under such circumstances, I feel that the
case is a proper one for exercising the powers under S. 482, Crl. P.C. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the committal against the
petitioners is hereby quashed and they are discharged.