Madras High Court
T.Arokia Arputha Raj vs The State Represented on 2 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P No.937 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P No.683 of 2017
T.Arokia Arputha Raj ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented
by the Inspector of Police,
S-1, St. Thomas Mount Police Station,
Chennai 600 016 ..Respondent/ Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the charge sheet filed
in SC No.38 of 2020 on the file of District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpet.
For Petitioner : S.Hemanand
For Respondents : MR.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in
S.C.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the learned District and Sessions
Court, Chengalpet.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2006 at
about 10.00 am, there was a wordy quarrel between A3 and the
elder brother son of the deceased. It is stated that the accused
persons had also beaten one Paduvai raj, who is the elder
brother's son of the deceased. In continuation of this incident,
the accused persons are said to have called the deceased in order
to talk about the incident and it ended in blows exchanged
between the parties and the deceased is said to have been
attacked and stabbed with knife. He was taken to the hospital
and he was declared dead.
3. Based on the complaint given by the wife of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
deceased, an FIR came to be registered for an offence under
Section 341, 323, 324 & 302 IPC against George and two others.
On completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and
the Court below took cognizance of the final report for an
offence under Section 307, 302 of IPC r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner
was arrayed as A2 in the final report.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate for respondent.
5. The main ground that has been raised by the
petitioner is that he was attacked with a wooden log by the
deceased in his head and he fell down and thereafter, the other
accused persons had attacked the deceased and he was also
stabbed by A1. The petitioner who fell down on being attacked,
never got up thereafter and he was not aware as to what
happened to the deceased. Inspite of the same, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
has been roped in this case with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.
6. The prosecution has examined nearly 32 witnesses
during the stage of investigation and their statements have been
recorded. The eye witnesses speak about the manner in which
the incident took place.
7. Section 34 of IPC in a way brings in the concept of
vicarious liability into a criminal case. It ropes in persons who
participate in a crime in furtherance of the common intention. It
is a rule of evidence and this provision does not create any
substantive offense. The allegations made in the final report as
well as the evidence of eye-witness shows that the petitioner was
also attacked in his head by a wooden log by the deceased. The
entire incident took place in a melee and the specific overt act
that are attributable to the accused persons will get clearer only
in the course of evidence. Even in the best case scenario,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
probably the petitioner may not have participated during the
time when the deceased was attacked with knife by A1. That
does not mean that he need not face the charges for the other
offence. A case of this nature, requires appreciation of evidence
in the course of trial and this Court deems it fit not to interfere
with the proceedings at this stage. It is left open to the
petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court below and
establish his defense.
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed and there shall be a direction to the Court below to
complete the proceedings within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial shall be
conducted on a day to day basis in accordance with the
guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod
Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC]. If the
petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand
him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH
(JT 2001 (4) SC 3191). Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are also closed.
02.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
rka
To
1. The District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
CRL.O.P No.937 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P No.683 of 2017
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
