AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—The petitioner Ramu alias Ramaswamy, who was shown as A.21 in the final report dated 12-1-1986 referable to Crime
No. 361/85 on the file of the Batlagundu Police Station, has filed this petition under S. 482. Crl.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him now
pending before the Court of Sessions Judge. Anna District at Dindigul in S.C. No. 8 of 1988.
It would be relevant to state at this point of time that the other accused twenty in number were tried before the Court of Sessions, Anna District
at Dindigul in S.C. No. 58 of 1987 and by the judgment dated 17-2-1988, the trial Court while convicting A2 (Ponram), A3 (Irulappan) and A4
(Ottali) acquitted all the other accused. Even in S.C.No. 38 of 1987 charges had been framed against the petitioner but later due to his absence,
the case against him was split up and the trial against others proceeded leading to the judgment referred above.
In the final report filed in Crime No. 361/85 the case against the petitioner is stated as follows:
On 3-7-1985 at 21.00 hours at Eluvampatti village, A1, A2 and A16 conspired to do illegal act due to the previous motive of A21 (Petitioner).
Hence, the petitioner was liable for the offence under S. 302 r/w S. 149 and S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It will be necessary at this juncture
to state a few facts regarding the incident in question. The accused who were tried in S.C. 38/87 were mostly Harijans and were engaged in
cultivating the lands at Eluvampatti of one Sivakolunda Chettiar, who was a non-resident, and the cultivation being managed by his wife
Mahalakshmi who was the resident of the village. For about 1 1/2 years prior to the occurrence, it is stated that the said Sivakolundu Chettiar
suspected the conduct of his wife Mahalakshmi and started illtreating her and in the process, replaced some of the Harijan accused who were
engaged for cultivation by his wife Mahalakshmi on the suspicion that they were rendering support to the estranged wife. In the process of
difference of opinion between the husband Sivakolundu Chettiar and the wife Mahalakshmi, it transpires Malalakshmi was driven out of the house
and the house was locked by Sivakolundu Chettiar before he left for Ceylon, but after some time Mahalakshmi entered the house with the support
of Nadutheru Harijans.
While so, on the morning of 14-7-85, Sivakolundu Chettiar again drove out his wife which led to Mahalakshmi laying a complaint before the
Batlagundu Police Station against her husband and a few others, which was registered as Crime No. 358/85 for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 454,
354, 355, 379, 323, 324 and 506 of I.P.C. It is in this background that the occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place at about
6:30 P.M. on 14-7-85. It is the case of the prosecution that the Harijans owing loyalty to Mahalakshmi wanted to scare the Chettiars of the village
and in that process they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to the active and important
members of the Chettiars'' Association and when the deceased Dorai, the treasurer of the Chettiars'' Association came with others and was
proceeding towards the waiting taxi, some of the accused pelted stones during the course of which one witness Nachiappan sustained injury. As
far as the deceased Durai is concerned overt acts are alleged against A2, A3 and A4 alone. A3 and A4 are alleged to have caught hold of the
deceased while A2 stabbed the deceased on his back with a knife resulting in an injury to the lung leading to his ultimate death. No overt act
whatsoever is attributed to the petitioner. As far as the charges that were framed against the petitioner in S.C. 38/87 are concerned, they are
referable to charges 8 and 9. Charge No. 8 is for an offence under S. 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. against A1, A5 to A6 and A10 to A21. As far as the
charge No. 9 is concerned, it was framed against A2, A16 and A21 for the offence of conspiracy punishable under S. 120B I.P.C.
Mr. T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following three points;
(1) Admittedly the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and therefore invoking the aid of S. 149 I.P.C. will not be feasible.
(2) In respect of the charge of conspiracy, the trial court in S.C. 38/37 has given a specific finding that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 who were
the only witnesses examined to prove the said charge was unworthy of credence and a different finding of fact may not be possible on the facts and
circumstances of this case.
(3) Taking the entire facts and circumstances put forth by the prosecution against this petitioner, there is no evidence whatsoever for any Court to
convict the petitioner.
I have heard Miss Thamaraiselvi, appearing for the State, and she has fairly conceded that there is practically no material about the presence of
the petitioner at the scene at the time of occurrence, and the only material placed by the prosecution was in relation to the conspiracy which is said
to be 11 days prior to the occurrence, and the relevant evidence regarding this conspiracy had not been accepted by the trial Court in S.C. 38/87
leading to the acquittal of most of the accused. It is represented by both counsel that no appeal had been filed by the State challenging the findings
of the trial Court in S.C. 38/87. It is also seen that none of the accused in S.C. 38/87 had been convicted with the aid of S. 149 I.P.C.
In the light of the submissions made, am of the view that even if the entire material on record, is taken into consideration, it will not constitute the
offences alleged against the petitioner. The statement of P. Andavar, Kamaraj and Paulraj who are witnesses No.16 to 18 in the final report is to
the following effect.
Of these three witnesses, Kamara and Paulraj were examined as P.Ws.9 and 1 while Andavar was not put in the witness box. Even taking their
statements as; whole, there can be no conspiracy for murder Further their evidence had been disbelieve by the trial Court in S.C. 38/87. The
observation of the trial Court in para 30 of it judgment would indicate that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 was incredible, tricky and shaky, left
much to be desired and was insufficient to establish conspiracy. A careful reading of their version throws serious doubt a to whether there was any
conspiracy at all. As already stated, the State had not filed and appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in S.C. 38/87.
In the said circumstances detailed by me earlier, it appears to my mind that there is practically no material whatsoever for a trial being conducted
against this petitioner. Even on the aspect of the motive referred to in the final report, it is conceded that there is no admissible evidence. It has
been after held that the saving of the inherent powers of this Court is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a Court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature o the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the quashing of proceedings by
this Court, if the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of more law, thought justice has got to be administered according to
laws, made by the legislature.
If on the facts of this case, as stated earlier there was no acceptable material for a change of conspiracy and admittedly the petitioner was not
present at the scene, I do no think, there will be any useful purpose served in the trial being conducted against the petitioner in S.C. 8/88.
In the result, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.