Madras High Court
Palanichamy vs Semalaiyappan on 30 November, 2021
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
1. Palanichamy
2. Kandasamy
3. Dhandapani
4. Thangavel
5. Eswaramoorthy
6. Shanmugam
7. Stalin Murugesan @ Veerakumar
8. Ponnusamy
9. Sodakkadai Subramani @ Balasubramaniam
10. Karikalan
11. Govindhammal ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Semalaiyappan
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
2. The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Vellakovil Police Station,
Tiruppur District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. to eschew the recording of the question and answer found
in the re-examination of P.W.1, which was recorded on 11.07.2017 in
Spl.S.C.No.134 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Special Court
cum Principal Sessions Court, Erode, Erode District.
For Petitioners : Mr. M. Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr. S. Sathia Chandran
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to expunge
the re-examination of P.W.1, which was recorded on 11.07.2017 in
Spl.S.C.No.134 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court cum Principal
Sessions Court, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A11 and they stood charge for the
offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, r/w.149 of IPC and Section
3(1)(X)(XIV) SC/ST Act. Earlier, this Court has appointed Mr.B.Mohan,
Senior Advocate, as the Special Public Prosecutor, and on an application
filed by the Special Public Prosecutor in Crl.M.P.No.426 of 2014, before
the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, all the prosecution witnesses, i.e.
P.Ws.1 to 11 were sought to be recalled and the same was dismissed on
27.03.2014. Challenging the same, the defacto complainant filed a
petition in Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014 before this Court and this Court,
by an order, dated 24.03.2017, permitted to recall P.Ws.1 to 9.
Thereafter, P.W.1 was recalled and during examination, he has mentioned
the name of the persons, who have attacked him and the same was
objected by the counsel appearing for the accused stating that the
question was put only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution evidence.
The Trial Court, after considering the objection, has held that the
objection of the accused will be considered after completion of trial, i.e.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
at the time of pronouncing judgment. Hence, the present petition has
been filed to eschew the above evidence on the ground that the witnesses
are recalled and examined only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution
case.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
and perused the materials available on records carefully.
4. From the perusal of the records, it could be seen that on the
petition, filed by the defacto complainant against the Public prosecutor,
in Crl.O.P.No.22043 of 2013, this Court appointed a Special Public
Prosecutor on 26.09.2013. Thereafter, the application, filed by the
Special Public Prosecutor for examination of witnesses, was dismissed
on 27.03.2014 and challenging the same, the defacto complainant
approached this Court and this Court, by an order dated 24.03.2017,
permitted to recall P.Ws.1 to 9 for re-examination. Pursuant to the order
of this Court, P.W.1 was recalled and his evidence was recorded, wherein,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
he has clearly stated the name of the persons, who have attacked him and
the same was objected by the accused. However, that objection was not
rejected by the Trial Court, and the Trial Court has only held that those
objection will be considered after completion of trial, i.e., at the time of
delivering judgment. Hence, this Court finds no error in the order passed
by the Trial Court and there is no merit in this petition.
5. In view of the above, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed. As the matter is of the year 2014 and already trial has
commenced, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and
complete the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
30.11.2021
Index: Yes/No
mrp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
To
1. The Special Court cum Principal Sessions Court,
Erode, Erode District
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vellakovil Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp
CRL.M.P.No.15019 of 2017
in
Crl.O.P.No.22156 of 2014
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
