Madras High Court
Edison vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 October, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.7034 & 7035 of 2021
Edison ... Petitioner/Accused No.9
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Alagesan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacti Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records relating to the criminal case now pending proceedings in
S.C.No.554 of 2017, on the file of the Sub-Court, Valliyoor, sofar as the
petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking quashment of the
proceedings in S.C.No.554 of 2017, on the file of the Sub-Court, Valliyoor.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
(i) On 20.11.1998, at about 10.00 p.m, there was a School function at
RC Thiru Irudhaya School, Kaval Kinaru, Tirunelveli District. During the
course of the above said function, the accused persons 1 to 12 were dancing
on the floor near the stage and also caused nuisance to others. When it was
questioned by the witnesses namely, Alagesan, Kumar S/o. of Muthu Nadar
and Kumar S/o. Jesudas, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them.
(ii) Because of that, on 21.11.1998, at about 2.00 a.m in the early
morning, when the witnesses were proceeding at the junction of R.C Church
street at Kaval Kinaru, Tirunelveli District, the accused persons 1 to 12
indulged in indiscriminate assault upon them with an intention to commit
murder at the instigation of A1. Due to which, they sustained multiple
injuries and they were admitted in the Chithambaranathan Hospital, Kaval
Kinaru.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
(iii) Based upon the complaint given by the second respondent, a case
in Crime No.502 of 1998 was registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 r/w 109 of IPC. After completing the
investigation, final report was filed against the accused before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.
45 of 2000. After completing the proceedings, the trial undertook in S.C.No.
554 of 2017, on the file sub-Court, Vallioor.
3. Because of the absence of the petitioner herein and the accused No.
2 & 5, the case was split up and the sessions has been tried in S.C.No.135 of
2012 was proceeded against the A1 & A4 and during the course of trial
proceedings, all the witnesses turned hostile. So, the Trial Court recorded
the findings of acquittal on 12.04.2017.
4. Since the case against the petitioner herein and the another accused
namely, Sujan, has been split up in S.C.No.554 of 2017 seeking quashment
of the proceedings, this petition came to be filed. Similarly, on the ground
that a petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.16185 of 2019 was moved by the above
said Sujan and the same was allowed, on 08.11.2019. Since the petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
also standing in the very same footing, the same benefit must be extended to
this petitioner also.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Since the defacto complainant namely, Alagesan turned hostile in
the parent case in S.C.No.554 of 2017, notice was not ordered to him and
after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this order is passed.
7. In the criminal case, totally 12 persons were arrayed as accused.
The judgment of the case in S.C.No.135 of 2012, dated 12.04.2017 was
produced by the petitioner. In that case, A1 & A4 namely, Madhan &
Mugilan were acquitted and the petitioner, the second accused namely,
Sujan and another accused namely, Altrin have faced the trial. After full
trial, the Trial Court recorded the findings of the acquittal upon A1 & A4.
During the course of trial, all the injured persons turned hostile. The another
accused namely, Sujan filed a petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.16185 of 2019
before this Court and that was also allowed and the proceedings against him
in S.C.No.554 of 2017, was quashed, as per the order, dated 08.11.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
8. The question, which arises for consideration in this petition is that
whether the order of acquittal passed in the parent case in S.C.No.554
of 2017 will give any benefit to the petitioner. The next question is that
whether the benefit of quashment that has been extended to the
co-accused namely, Sujan in Crl.OP(MD)No. 16185 of 2019 can also be
extended to the petitioner.
9. In the judgment reported in Sat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
AIR 1974 SC 294, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that simply
because the co-accused have been acquitted in the parent case, it will not
lead to necessary order of acquittal upon the other co-accused also. But,
however, the Hon'ble Supreme court has pointed out that when the evidence
in both the cases are similar and inseparable, the benefit of acquittal can be
extended to the co-accused also.
10. With this principle in mind, let us proceed to see whether the
evidence in both the cases are one and the same and inseparable in
nature. For that purpose, the charge that has been levelled against the
petitioner herein as well as the evidence that have been let in the parent case
must be seen.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
11. In the final report, it has been mentioned that the petitioner
assaulted the defacto complainant with aruval on his head. The injured
defacto complainant was shown as witness No.1 in the final report and also
examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.135 of 2012. During
the course of evidence, he stated that on the date of occurrence, he was
returning to his house from Kavalkinaru Bus Stop and fell down and
sustained injuries. He did implicate the accused persons before the Officer,
who recorded his statement. But, he has admitted the signature found in the
statement, which is marked as Ex.P.1. He was treated as a hostile witness.
12. Similarly, the eye witnesses, who were examined as P.W.2, P.W.
3, P.W.4 & P.W.5 also turned hostile and they stated that they did not
witness the occurrence. But, however, from the evidence of the Doctor, who
was examined as P.W.8, it is seen that P.W.1 sustained injuries on head and
back side of the head. One injury was shown as grievous and the second
also simple in nature. Even though, P.W.1 sustained injuries, it has stated
that the same was not caused due to the assault made by the accused
persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
13. It is seen that in both the cases, the witnesses are one and the
same and inseparable in nature. So, noting the above said development only,
the co-accused has been given the benefit of quashment in Crl.OP(MD)No.
16185 of 2019, dated 08.11.2019. So, the same benefit can be extended to
the petitioner herein and no purpose is going to be served by directing the
petitioner to undergo the trial process. By applying the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (cited supra),
this petition is liable to be allowed.
14. In view of the above, the proceedings in S.C.No.554 of 2017 on
the file of the Sub-Court, Valliyoor, is hereby quashed insofar as the
petitioner herein is concerned and this Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.10.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Sub-Court,
Valliyoor.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Panagudi Police Station,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13537 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.7034 & 7035 of 2021
04.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
