Nelson vs The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 15787 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15787 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2023

Madras High Court

Nelson vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 December, 2023

Author: G.Ilangovan

Bench: G.Ilangovan

                                                                     Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20209 of 2023



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 07.12.2023
                                                   CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                         Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20209 of 2023

                     Nelson                                              ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                       Puthukadai Police Station,
                       Represented by Public Prosecutor,
                       Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
                       (Crime No.243 of 2005)

                     2.Chandra Mohan David

                     3.Justus Babu

                     4.Jeba Mohan David

                     5.Rajan

                     6.Jebasingh

                     7.Darwin Rozer @ Dolly,

                     8.Brucely

                     9.Raju @ Ramakrishnan

                     10.Prasad

                     11.Shajan

                     12.Albert

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                               Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20209 of 2023



                     13.Alex @ Edison

                     14.Shaji (Died)                                          ...Respondents


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

                     Cr.P.C, to transfer the case in S.C.No.65 of 2006 on the files of the

                     learned Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, to any other equivalent competent Court

                     at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District.

                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.SC.Herold Singh

                                        For R1              : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
                                                              Government Advocate (Crl.side)
                                        For R3 to R8
                                        and R10 to R13      : Mr.V.Kathir Velu, Senior Counsel,
                                                               for Mr.K.Jeyamohan

                                        For R2 and R9       : Mr.G.Cenil

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to transfer the case in

S.C.No.65 of 2006 on the files of the learned Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, to

any other equivalent competent Court at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari

District.

2. P.W.3 filed a petition before the trial Court. The accused are

facing charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 r/w. 149 and

506(ii) IPC. During the course of trial process, some sort of observation

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20209 of 2023

was made by the concerned trial Judge against conduct, antecedent and

the manner of giving evidence by P.W.20. That was objected by this

petitioner by filing complaint, stating that the Presiding Officer has

prejudice against the prosecution. But the complaint given by some of

the parties was not entertained by Principal District Judge, Nagercoil.

After that the petition has been filed, making the very same allegations.

So, report was called for from the trial Court, for what conditions the

above said observation was made by him. A detailed report is submitted

by him, which contain the following reasons:

“ This Court issued summon to P.W.20 and he appeared.

When he appeared I asked any threat is existing? and he

said no threat is existing. Thereafter only I recorded his

evidence. During the cross examination the defence

counsels were questioned about his character. The accused

taken defence that to prolong the case P.W.20 purposely

evade from summon and not appeared. In cross each and

every questions, he was not answered directly. His body

language reflects that he was telling lies in regard to the

material facts of the case. Even warning to him to answer

the question directly, he was not answered directly. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20209 of 2023

I further submit that, in these circumstances, I

constrained to made such kind of observation in his

evidence. P.W.3 got stab wound on his lower left chest. But

in M.O.1, P.W.3's shirt no damage on the said part. In

material objects (dresses of the injured) there are stains.

But no blood stains smell in the material objects and

material objects has not been sent for Forensic test. These

aspect questioned during cross examination. How, when

the injured got injuries, which hospitals, they were taken

treatment, when they took hospital, when informed to the

Police asked during cross and he was not answered

directly and properly. In these circumstances the said

observation was made. To prolong the proceedings, these

kinds of petitions were filed.

I humbly submit that, I have no personal interest in

this case and I have no intention to cause prejudice to the

interest of the victims. Hence, I request the Hon'ble Judge

to accept my explanation with your kindness.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20209 of 2023

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the accused

would submit that no doubt that the observation that was made by the

trial Judge may not be appropriate, during the trial process. It is also

submitted that direction be issued to that trial Judge to pronounce the

judgment without being influenced by his own observation in the

deposition, since some other injured witnesses are examined.

4. He would further submit that P.W.20's antecedent was taken into

account by the Presiding Judge. But again, I make myself refrain from

the making any observation against the antecedent of the P.W.20. The

evidentiary value can be looked into only at that time of hearing

argument and pronounce the judgment, not before that.

5. Similarly, one of the other accused also submitted that P.W.20 is