Madras High Court
P. Arockiadoss vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
1.Crl.O.P(MD)No.1584 of 2021:-
P. Arockiadoss ... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
Ramnad District.
In Crime No.74 of 2008. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Mari ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.79 of 2020 on the
file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edinbrough
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
2.Crl.O.P(MD)No.1643 of 2021:-
P. Arockiadoss ... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
Ramnad District.
In Crime No.72 of 2008. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ramar ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.80 of 2020 on the
file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edinbrough
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
3.Crl.O.P(MD)No.1645 of 2021:-
P. Arockiadoss ... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
Ramnad District.
In Crime No.71 of 2008. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Thirukannan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.81 of 2020 on the
file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and
quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edinbrough
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
4.Crl.O.P(MD)No.1647 of 2021:-
P. Arockiadoss ... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
Ramnad District.
In Crime No.73 of 2008. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Boominathan ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.82 of 2020 on the
file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edinbrough
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
5.Crl.O.P(MD)No.1650 of 2021:-
P. Arockiadoss ... Petitioner/Accused No.8
Vs.
1.The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
Ramnad District.
In Crime No.75 of 2008. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Muthulakshmi ... 2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records of the charge sheet in S.C.No.83 of 2020 on the
file of the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Edinbrough
For R – 1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the
proceedings in S.C.Nos.79, 80, 81, 82 & 83 of 2020 on the file of
the learned District Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, as against
the petitioner.
2.There are totally 36 accused, in which the petitioner is
arraigned as Accused No.8 in all the cases.
3.The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons
are belonged to Scheduled Caste and on 11.09.2008, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
celebrating Immanuel Sekaran Guru Pooja, they trespassed into the
defacto complainant's place and damaged some properties worth
about Rs.200 and taken groceries worth about Rs.3,000/- and
threatened the public to close the shops by remarking their
community leader festival. Hence, separate complaints were filed
from the every shop owners and the same were registered. After
completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final reports.
Except the petitioner, all the accused were facing trial and all the
cases were ended in acquittal. However, the petitioner was failed to
appear before the trial Court, since he went to abroad for his
avocation. Hence, these cases were split up separately and now
taken cognizance for trial.
4.According to the petitioner, he was not present at the time
of occurrence and even at the date of occurrence, he was in abroad
and even then, he has been falsely implicated in the present cases.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
6.On a perusal of the Judgment passed in S.C.No.86 of 2012
on the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi, dated 22.12.2015, the
trial Court acquitted all the accused persons. The trial Court
recorded the reason for acquittal, which reads as follows:-
“9. gpur;rid
,e;j tHf;fpy; m.rh.1d; filia cilj;J
behWf;fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLfpwJ. m.rh.1 jd;
rhl;rpaj;jpy; ,k;khDnty; nrfud; epidt[ ehis
Kd;dpl;L te;jth;fs; Rkhh; 50 ngh;> vdJ filia
moj;J behWf;fpajhf Twpa[s;shh;. me;j Fk;gypy; M$h;
vjphpfs; ,Ue;jhh;fsh vd;W jdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W
Twptpl;lhh;.
10. m.rh 2> 3 Mfpnahh; jq;fsJ rhl;rpaj;jpy;
gukf;Foapy; mike;Js;s ,k;khDnty; nrfud;
epidt[ jpdj;jpw;fhf thfdq;fspy; Fk;gyhf te;jth;fs;
filia moj;J behWf;fpajhf Twpa[s;sdh;. mt;thW
vjphpfs; rk;gtj;jpy; <Lgl;lhh;fsh vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L
vJt[k; brhy;ytpy;iy. te;jth;fspy; M$h; vjphpfSk;
ke;Wk; gyUk; ,Ue;jjhf m.rh 3 kl;Lk;
Twpa[s;shh;. ,Ug;gpDk; ve;bje;j vjphp vd;d
Fw;wr;bra;if bra;jhh; vd;W m.rh 3 Fwpg;ghf vJt[k;
brhy;ytpy;iy.
11. jdpg;gl;l rhl;rpfshd m.rh 4 jdJ
rhl;rpaj;jpy; m.rh 1d; filia g];> ntdpy; te;jth;fs;
moj;J behWf;fpajhf Twpa[s;sdh;. Mdhy; ahh; ahh;
vd;d Fw;wr;bra;if bra;jhh;fs; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
brhy;ytpy;iy. Fk;gypy; vjphpfSk; ,Ue;jjhf m.rh 4
brhy;ypa[s;s nghjpYk; ahh; ahh; vd cWjp gLj;jp
rhl;rpak; mspf;ftpy;iy.
12. rk;gtj; jpdj;jd;W ghJfhg;gpw;fhf
rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F mUfpy; ,Ue;j fhty; Jiwia nrh;;e;j
m.rh 5> 6> 7> 8> 9> 10> 11> 12> 13 kw;Wk; 14
Mfpnahh; <Lgl;ljhft[k; jhq;fs; jLg;g[ gzpfis
bra;jjhf rhl;rpaj;jpy; Twpa[s;shh;. ,Ug;gpDk; M$h;
vjphpfs; jhd; rk;gtj;jpy; <Lgl;lhh;fs; vd;W cWjpgLj;jp
mth;fs; rhl;rpak mspf;ftpy;iy.
13.,e;j tHf;fpy; ghh;it kfrh; kw;Wk; khjphp
tiuglk; kw;Wk; rk;gt rhl;rpfspd; rhl;rpaj;ij itj;J
ghh;f;Fk;nghJ m.rh 1d; fil nrjg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ
g[ydhfpwJ. ,Ug;gpDk; rk;gtj;jpy; vjphpfs; jhd;
<Lgl;lhh;fsh vd;gij cWjp bra;a Koatpy;iy.
14.rk;gt neuj;jpy; ghJfhg;gpw;fhf epiwa nghyprhh;
,Ue;jjhf rhl;rpfspd; rhl;rpaj;jpy; ,Ue;J ed;F
g[ydhfpwJ. ,Ug;gpDk; ghJfhg;gpw;fhf brd;w nghyprhuhy;
rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J vjphpfspy; xU egiuf;Tl ifJ
bra;ag;gltpy;iy. M$h; vjphpfspy; MW ngh; kl;Lk;
21.09.2008k; njjp fhiy 5 kzpf;F ifJ
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sdh;> rk;gtk; ele;J Rkhh; 10 ehl;fs;
fHpj;J rk;gtj;jpy; <Lgl;ljhf MW ngh; kl;Lk; ifJ
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sdh;.
15.,e;j tHf;fpy; M$h; vjphpfs; jhd; rk;gtj;jpy;
<Lgl;lh;fs; vd;W cWjp bra;a Koatpy;iy. Vdnt>
vjphpfs; kPjhd Fw;wk; re;njfj;jpw;F mg;ghw;gl;l epiyapy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
epUgpf;f muR jug;gpy; jtwptpl;ljhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk;
fUJfpwJ.
16.nknyfz;lthW rhl;rpa rhd;whtzq;fspd;
mog;gilapy; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; ghprPyid bra;J ghh;;f;ifapy;
vjphpfs; kPjhd Fw;wk; epUgzkhftpy;iy
vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ.
17.Kothf 1 Kjy; 33 vjphpfis ,jr 147>
148> 448 ke;Wk; gphpt[ 3(1) jkpH;ehL brhj;Jf;fs;
(nrjk; ke;Wk; ,Hg;g[) jLg;g[ rl;lj;jpd; fPH; Fw;wthspfs;
my;y vd;W jPh;khdpj;J 1 Kjy; 33 vjphpfis FtpKr
gphpt[ 235(1) d; fPH; tpLjiy bra;J ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;g;g[
mspf;fpwJ.”
Since all the accused persons were acquitted for the reasons that no
prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, if the trial is proceeded as against the petitioner, there is
absolutely no chance for getting conviction, since all the prosecution
witnesses were turned hostile.
7.In this regard, it is relevant to rely the judgment reported in
2007-1 L.W.(Crl.) 514 – Tamilmaran Vs. The State rep. by
Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi
Taluk, Thiruvarur District, where, this Court has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
“7. This Court is of the considered view that
there is much force on the contention put forward by
the learned senior counsel to the effect that the
learned trial Judge having disbelieved the prosecution
case in toto no useful purpose would be served by
putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trail on
the basis of the very same set of evidence. It is also
pointed out by the learned senior counsel that even
the defacto complainant himself turned hostile giving a
total go-by to his earlier version and there is no other
material available on record to implicate the petitioner.
The learned senior counsel has rightly placed reliance
on the decision of the Delhi High Court in a case in
Sunil Kumar v. State reported in 2000 (1) Crimes 73
wherein it is held as follows:
“3. The question thus is as to whether in the
face of the judgment of acquittal the
petitioner should still be permitted to undergo
the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State
of Haryana (AIR 1974 SC 294), it was held
that there is no rule of law that if the Court
acquits some of the accused on the evidence
of a witness raising doubt with regard to them
the other accused against whom there is
absolute certainty about his complicity in the
crime based on the remaining credible part of
evidence of that witness must be acquitted.
(See also Har Prasad v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (AIR 1971 SC 1450,) Makan
Jivan v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1971 SC
1797) Mohd. Moin Uddin V. State of
Maharashtra (1971 S.C.C.(Cri.) 617). But
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
where the evidence against all the accused
persons is inseparable and indivisible and if
some of the accused persons have been
acquitted, the remaining accused persons
cannot be treated differently on the basis of
the same evidence.
4. On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal
dated 19.01.1998 it appears that the
deceased Balwan Singh met with a homicidal
death owing to burn injuries sustained by him
has not been disputed by the accused
persons. The evidence against the accused
persons mainly consists of the evidence of the
eye-witnesses, namely, Karan Singh (PW2)
and Smt. Asha Rani(PW-5) (Wife of the
deceased Balwan Singh) besides the dying
declaration (Ex.PW-13/a) of the deceased
Balwan Singh. Both the said witnesses have
not supported the prosecution case and so
they have been declared hostile by the
prosecution. Eliminating the evidence of the
said eye-witnesses, there remains the dying
declaration (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased
Balwan Singh, which has been disbelieved by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It would,
therefore, appear that the accused persons,
namely, Jangli Tyagi, Balbir Singh, Anil Kumar
Tyagi and Sushil Kumar Tyagi were acquitted
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
Thus, the evidence adduced in the case
against all the accused persons is inseparable
and indivisible and that being so the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
cannot be treated differently on the basis of
the said evidence. In this view of the matter,
there is no prospect of the case ending in
conviction against the petitioner and the
valuable time of the Court would be wasted
for holding trial only for the purpose of
formally completing the procedure to
pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If
the Court is almost certain that the trial only
would be an exercise in futility or sheer
wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or
ship the proceedings at the stage of Section
227 if the Code itself.”
8.Further, this Court and various High Courts repeatedly held
that the acquittal of the other co-accused, after considering the
depositions and holding their evidence to be unreliable, the trial
Court cannot re-assess their depositions once again and take a
contrary view. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the above settled proposition of law laid down in the above decision
is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
9.In the present case, except the petitioner, all the accused
have been tried the charges and acquitted in S.C.No.86 of 2012 on
the file of the Sub-Court, Paramakudi, by judgment, dated
22.12.2015 holding that all the witnesses are turned hostile. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
petitioner being A8 is also standing in the same footing like the
other accused persons. While being so, if the trial proceeded as
against the petitioner with the same witnesses, no useful purpose
would be served to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of the
trial since all the witnesses were turned hostile.
10.In view of the above discussion, these Criminal Original
Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in S.C.Nos.79, 80, 81, 82
& 83 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram, are quashed as against the petitioner/A8 is
concerned.
12.04.2022
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
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 District Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Keelathuval Police Station,
Ramnad District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645, 1647 & 1650 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.1584, 1643, 1645,
1647 & 1650 of 2021
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
