The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 20th December 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras vide which the learned Judge discharged the appellants in the exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court observed that the learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint by exercising the power under Section 203 of CrPC on the ground that the death was not proved to be homicidal.
Brief Facts:
The Respondent’s father had lodged a FIR alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 341, 323, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellants. In the complaint, it was alleged that the first appellant had filed a suit against the respondent, praying for carrying out the measurement of the property claimed by the appellants and removing encroachment. The allegation is that the second appellant picked up a stick lying at the site and assaulted the deceased. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report recording that the death of the deceased was due to natural cause and due to prior enmity, Instead of filing a protest petition, the respondent’s father filed a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC containing the same averments made in his complaint based on which the FIR was registered. The appellants invoked Section 227 of CrPC for discharge, which was allowed by order dated 9th January 2009.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the post-mortem certificate dated 10th October 2004 records that there were no ante-mortem injuries anywhere on the body of the deceased. The doctor stated that the death was a natural one. He submitted that the case made out by the respondent’s father was false.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though his father may not have filed a protest petition, he was entitled in law to file a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC. He submitted that ultimately, only after a complete trial the question of whether the appellants are responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased can be determined.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the High Court was of the view that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge had conducted a mini-trial. Initially, the learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint by exercising the power under Section 203 of CrPC on the ground that the death was not proved to be homicidal.
The Court observed that a mini-trial was not conducted. The Court has considered the case within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC. However, the Court said that there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father. The High Court, even after referring to the post-mortem certificate, has completely ignored the doctor's evidence.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court, allowing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside.
Case Title: Ramalingam & Ors. v N. Viswanathan
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case No.: 2023 Latest Caselaw 40 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B Balaji, AOR and Mr. S Arun Prakash.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
