Vedi @ Raman v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.22371/2006Cr.MP.No.1/2006Vedi @ RamanPetitionerVsState by Inspector of Police Mathur Police Station Dharmapuri District RespondentPrayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords in SC.No.100/2006 on the file of the Additional SessionJudge, Krishnagiri and quash the same, as illegal.For Petitioner:Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondent :Mr.S.Senthil Murugan for PPORDER The Petitioner/A4, who is facing charges under Sections120B, 459, 395 read with 397, 302 and 435 of IPC and Section 3 ofthe Explosive Substance Act in SC.No.100/2006 on the file of thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, has filed thisCriminal Original Petition to quash the said charges.2. The charges were laid as against seven accused viz. (1)Muniraj A1, (2) Jayachandran A2, (3) Tamilvanan A3, (4) Vedi @Raman A4, (5) Arumugam @ K.C.Selvam A5, (6) Jeevan A6 and (7)Tamilarasan A7. The charges against A1 to A7 are that theyconspired together, manufactured country bombs and exploded them inorder to commit illegal act viz. to commit dacoity and in thecourse of said act, they committed the murder of the deceasedAppasamy. The specific charge as against A1 and A2 is that theyused deadly weapons like Koduval and committed the murder of thedeceased along with the other accused.3. The case against A1 and A2 was split up and was triedin SC.No.70/1998 and by judgement dated 9.7.1999, they wereacquitted of the charges by the learned III Additional SessionsJudge on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove thecharges leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. From theevidence let in by the Prosecution in SC.NO.70/1998, it is seenthat PW.1 Selvam, son-in-law of the deceased Appasamy is the primewitness relied on by the Prosecution to speak about the occurrenceand also regarding the identity of the accused persons. PW.8 andPW.9 are the daughters and PW.3 is the grand son of the deceased. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Besides them, some more witnesses were also examined to speak aboutthe occurrence on the side of the Prosecution. 4. Strong reliance was placed on the identification paradeconducted by the learned Magistrate as against A1 and A2 in thetrial in SC.No.70/98. Admittedly, no such identification parade wasconducted as against the other accused, including the Petitioner/A4herein. That apart, the Prosecution had relied upon the statementsof the witnesses recorded under Section 14 of Code of CriminalProcedure by the learned Magistrate and the same was also pressedinto service.5. The learned Sessions Judge, after full trial, has foundthat the prime witnesses have turned hostile and the Prosecutionhas not cross examined them and in such circumstances, there wasabsolutely no evidence to prove the charges made against theaccused persons. It is also pointed out by the learned SessionsJudge that the Prosecution witnesses had not identified the accusedin the court and they also denied that they identified thoseaccused persons in the identification parade conducted by thelearned Magistrate. The findings rendered by the learned SessionsJudge is extracted below:-"ek;Kd; cs;s M$h; vjphpfis bghWj;J rhl;rpfspy; xt;bthUtUk; mth;fs; Fw;wKWbray;fis bra;jpUf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W Fwpg;gpltpy;iy/ ,e;j egh;fs; bfhiy. bfhs;isaoj;jFk;gypy; ,Ue;j egh;fs; vd;W ahUk; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy/ vjphpfis rk;gtj;ij nehpy;fz;Qqw;w milahsk; fhl;ltpy;iy/ vjphpfs;jhd; rk;gtj;jpy; <Lgl;lhh;fs; vd;gjw;fhdnehpilahd rhl;rpfs; my;yJ re;jh;g;g rhl;rpfs; vJt[k; ,y;iy/ vdnt. vjphpfSf;Fvjpuhd muR jug;g[ Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; Ia';fSf;F mg;ghw;gl;L jw;nghJ Kd;d[iyahfpa[s;svjphpfis bghWj;J epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;W jPhkhdpf;fpnwd;/ ,jd; fhuzkhfre;njfj;jpd; gyd; vjphpfSf;F mspf;fg;gl ntz;Lbkd;W jPh;khdpff;f;pfnwd;/"6. A5 Arumugam @ K.C.Selvam was tried in SC.No.150/2001and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, on considering theevidence let in by the Prosecution and the other materials placedon record has found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. Thelearned Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence of PW.1 Selvam,son-in-law of the deceased and has found that he had turned hostileand there was no other evidence to prove the case of theProsecution and further the Prosecution witnesses failed toidentify the accused in the court and they denied that theyidentified the accused A1 and A2 in the identification paradeconducted by the learned Magistrate . Therefore, with regard tothe same occurrence when the trial was conducted on two occasionsi.e. one with regard to A1 and A2 and another with regard to A5,the learned Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence has heldthat the charges against the accused were not proved and found themnot guilty and acquitted them accordingly.7. The occurrence had taken place on 11.12.1976. A6 isstill absconding and A7 Tamilarasan has been done to death. A3Tamilvanan is in judicial custody in relation to some other case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As already stated, A1, A2 and A5 have been acquitted of the chargesin SC.Nos.70/1998 and 150/2001 respectively. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submitthat in view of the facts that the Prosecution witnesses, exceptthe Investigating Officer, had failed to support the case of theProsecution and turned hostile and that there was no other materialprima facie to prove the charges leveled against the accused andthat no recovery had been made and that possession of explosivesubstance by the accused persons also have not been proved, thetrial as against the Petitioner if be held, then it would only be afutile exercise more particularly when the Sessions Court hadanalysed the evidence on two occasions and found the charges notproved on evidence adduced by the Prosecution. He would contendthat on such facts and circumstances, the benefit extended to themain accused A1, A2 and A5 should be applied to the Petitioner/A4herein also.9. The Honourable Supreme Court summarised some categoriesof cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quashthe proceedings in Pawan Kumar Bhaloba Vs. State of West Bengal[AIR-2005-SC-153], wherein it is held as follows:-"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is legalbar e.g. Want of sanction, (ii) Where the allegationsin the FIR or complaint taken at its value do notconstitute any offence and (iii) Where the allegationsconstitute an offence but there is no legal evidence orthe evidence adduced clearly fails to prove thecharge."10. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out theobservation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofGorle S.Naidu Vs. State of AP and others [AIR-2004-SC-1169], whichis extracted below:-"13. Though mere acquittal of large number of co-accusedpersons does not per se entitle others to acquittal, thecourt has a duty in such cases to separate the grain fromthe chaff. If after sieving the untruth or unacceptableportion of the evidence residue is sufficient to provethe guilt of the accused, there is no legal bar inconvicting a person on the evidence which has beenprimarily disbelieved vis-a-vis others. But where theyare so inseparable that any attempt to separate themwould destroy the substratum on which the prosecutionversion is founded, then the court would be within itslegal limits to discard the evidence in toto..... "11. In the aforesaid back ground, by analysing the evidencewhich was discussed already by the Sessions Court, it is seen thatall the prime witnesses have turned hostile and did not support thecase of the Prosecution. Identity of A1 and A2 in theidentification parade was also not proved by the Prosecution. No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recovery had been made and possession of explosive substance by theaccused persons has also not been proved. There is absolutely noevidence against the accused, which has necessitated the SessionsCourt to acquit the accused A1, A2 and A5.12. By applying the principle laid down by the HonourableSupreme Court cited supra, after analysing evidence, no residue isleft sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore,even if the Petitioner is allowed to face the trial, then it wouldonly be a futile exercise.13. In the case of Mohg. Iqbal M.Shaikh and others Vs.State of Maharashtra [1998-4-SC-494], the Honourable Supreme Courthas held as follows:-"It is true that in a country like India where it isdifficult to find a witness who has not made anyembellishment or exaggeration, and therefore, in suchcase court would be justified in separating the chafffrom the grain and then act upon the grain. But wherethe evidence consists of only chaff as in the presentcase, the question of separating the chaff from the grainwould not arise. Then again when all the eyewitnesssuffer from the same infirmities, the question of onecorroborating the other look for corroboration to thereliable part of the ocular version of a witness. But ifa witness is wholly unreliable the question ofcorroboration does not arise. Even though the presentcase was a ghastly one and on account of communal frenzyseveral people belonging to one community were burntalive by some others but unless and until the prosecutionevidence conclusively establishes those others as theperpetrators of the crimes, it is not possible for acourt below of law to record conviction on mereconjectures and hypothesis."14. The evidence consists of only chaff in the presentcase. Therefore, the question of separating the chaff from thegrain would not arise. Hence, it would be appropriate to quash thecharges leveled against the Petitioner in order to meet the ends ofjustice.15. In view of the reasons stated above, the criminalproceedings in SC.No.100/2006 is quashed and this Criminal OriginalPetition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Srcm To:1 The Additional Session Judge, Krishnagiri 2 Do Thro The Principle Judge, Krishnagiri3 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 4 The Inspector of Police, State of Tamil Nadu Mathur Police Station, Dharmapuri District. Crl.OP.No.22371/2006CO BSSRA 06/08/2009