Madras High Court
Vijai vs State Rep By on 17 October, 2022
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018 and
Crl.MP.Nos.5044 & 5045 of 2018
Vijai ... Petitioner/A17
Versus
State Rep by
Inspector of Police,
Meensuriti Police Station,
Ariyalur District
(crime No.130 of 2008) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 08.03.2018
made in Crl.MP.No.135 of 2018 in SC.No.138 of 2013 passed by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Krishnamoorthy
for Mr.B.Nambiselvan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
ORDER
This criminal revision is directed as against the order passed in
Crl.MP.No.135 of 2018 dated 08.03.2018 in SC.No.138 of 2013 on the file
of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, thereby dismissing
the petition filed for discharge.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one, Desingubalan of
Vangudi Village was murdered by the deceased. While being so, on
16.05.2008, in retaliation of Desingubalan murder, the accused committed
murder. Therefore, FIR has been registered for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 120(b) of IPC. The petitioner is
arrayed as 17th accused. After completion of investigation, the respondent
filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in SC.No.138 of
2013. While pending trial, the petitioner filed petition to discharge him from
all the charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
3. The petitioner raised ground that the petitioner's name did not
find place in the FIR. He was only twenty years at the time of occurrence
i.e.16.05.2008. He was implicated at the aid of Section 120(b) of IPC, for
which there is no direct or indirect evidence to show that the petitioner also
indulged in the occurrence along with 18 accused persons. The petitioner
was unnecessarily and falsely implicated in the present case. He further
submitted that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioner
and the test to determine a prima facie case depends upon facts of each case.
In support of his contention, he also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and
another reported in AIR 2010 (3) SCC 663, wherein it is observed that if
two views are possible and one of the them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial court will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial
will end in conviction or acquittal.
4. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent / police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
5. On perusal of the charge sheet, revealed that though the
petitioner has been charged under the conspiracy, it is matter for trial. There
are sufficient materials to attract other offences read with Section 120(b) of
IPC. Therefore, in the initial stage of trial itself, it cannot be predicted that
the petitioner will be acquitted. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed
the petition for discharge and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the order passed by the court below.
6. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lok
To
1.The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Salem
2.Inspector of Police,
Meensuriti Police Station,
Ariyalur District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Crl.RC.No.415 of 2018
17.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
