B.Sudhakar vs The State Rep.By
2022 Latest Caselaw 1070 Mad

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        Dated: 24.01.2022

                                                              CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                                   Crl. O.P. No. 17028 of 2018

                     B.Sudhakar                                                    ...Petitioner

                                                                Versus

                     The State Rep.by
                     Station House Officer,
                     Ramanaththam Police Station,
                     Cuddalore District.
                     (Crime No.6 of 2008)                                         ...Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
                     Procedure Code, to call for the records in respect of proceeding in J.C.No.138
                     of 2017, on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore and quash the
                     same.
                                             For Petitioner    : Mr.R.Sethuvarayar

                                             For Respondent    : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
                                                                 Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                              ORDER

This Petition has been filed to quash the final report in J.C.No.138 of

2017, filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 342,

Page No:1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

364, 323, 302 r/w 149 IPC, on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore.

2. The crux of the charge is that as the deceased developed some illegal

connection with the mother of A1. A2 is the brother of A1. In order to do

away with the accused kidnapped the deceased on 23.10.2007 and caused

injuries to the deceased and thereby, the deceased succumbed to injuries on

13.08.2017.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contented that

in the main case against other accused the prosecution story was disbelieved by

the trial court and all the accused were acquitted in S.C.No.73 of 2009, on the

file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-3), Vridhachalam and submitted

that the same witnesses sought to be relied by the prosecution against the

petitioner. The evidence has already analysed by the court and disbelieved by

the trial Court. Therefore, all the accused were acquitted and the judgment has

not been appealed. Therefore similar benefit is also sought to be given to the

Juvenile.

4. Heard learned counsel appeared for both sides and perused the

materials available on record.

Page No:2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

5. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

this Court perused the judgment of the trial court in main S.C.No.73 of 2009,

the learned trial Judge taking note of the statements given by the deceased in

various aspects in different statements as to the nature of injury sustained by

him. One statement the deceased stated that he fell down and another

statement he sustained injury while going on a cycle and the learned trial judge

disbelieved the entire witnesses evidence and acquitted. The same witnesses

sought to be examined by the prosecution in the subsequent trial. Therefore, no

purpose would be served to the prosecution. Trial Court in S.C.No.73 of 2009

also come to the definite conclusion that the materials relied upon by the

prosecution in the name of call details have not been proved to prove the

alleged conspiracy and conversion between the parties. None of the evidence

implicated the juvenile who is the present petitioner. Therefore, the entire

charges relied by the prosecution is disbelieved.

6. This Court is of the view that the deceased died in some other

circumstances, continuation of prosecution against this petitioner who is a

Page No:3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

juvenile is futile exercise. Accordingly, final report pending in J.C.No.138 of

2017, on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore is quashed. It is also

admitted by the state that there is no appeal has been preferred as against the

judgment of the acquittal.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

24.01.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order psa/ggs

To

1.The Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore.

2.The State Rep.By Station House Officer, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No:4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

psa/ggs

Crl. O.P. No. 17028 of 2018

Page No:5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17028 of 2018

24.01.2022

Page No:6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis