Madras High Court
Ramesh vs The State Rep.By on 9 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1468 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.10.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1468 of 2024
and
CRL M.P.No.12331 of 2024
Ramesh ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Uddanapalli Police,
Crime No.258 of 2020 ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 442 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksa Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order
passed by the Additional Session Court at Krishnagiri in CMP.2415 of
2024 in S.C.No.23 of 2023, dated 04.07.2024 and discharge the
petitioner from the provisions of the aforesaid charge sheet.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugesh
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl.Public Prosecutor,
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1468 of 2024
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 04.07.2024, in
C.M.P.No.2415/2024 in S.C.No.23/2023 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Krishnagiri, for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 302, 120B, 149, 114, 109 and 201 of IPC., the present
Revision is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2020 at about
6.45 p.m., due to previous enmity, the accused persons Venkataraj/A-
1, Harish/A-2, Muniraj/A-3, Srinivasan/A-4 and Mathesh/A-5 came to
house of the deceased abused him in filthy languages, assaulted him
with Aruval and wooden log, other deadly weapons and caused his
death. Hence the complaint.
3. Mr.R.Murugesh, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner/ A7 would submit that the Petitioner is an undergraduate
and at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was working as
a freelancer in the area of Network Marketing for Organisation which
included QNET. His job responsibilities was selling various product of
the organisations through online. The Petitioner make calls to the
customers for his business. The learned counsel further submitted
that the Petitioner / A7 was not named in the FIR. The petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arrayed based on the confession of the co-accused. The Redmi Phone
is shown as recovery from the petitioner on his arrest on 17.05.2020,
four days after the occurrence, but the Redmi phone has been shown
as recovered from Muniraj/A3 and another Redmi phone from
Madesh/A5, as per Form 95 and the charge sheet. Hence, no
recovery from the Petitioner/A7. Further, 17.05.2020 is during
Corono Period restrictions and no one was allowed to move freely.
Thus, the case projected against the petitioner is with contradictions
and prove the petitioner is falsely implicated. No specific overt act
attributed against the petitioner and in the material placed by the
prosecution before the trial Court did not indict the involvement of
the petitioner in the offence. Hence, the petitioner filed a Petition in
C.M.P.No.2415 of 2025 in S.C.No.23 of 2023, before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., r/w
Sections 227, Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C., and under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, to discharge the Petitioner/A7. The said Petition
was dismissed on 04.07.2024. The learned counsel, in support of his
contentions, has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1582, wherein it has been held as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“..... protection against vexatious and
unwanted prosecution and from being
unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a
criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through
quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an
appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by
any other legally permissible route, as the
circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a
duty cast on the High Courts.”
4. The learned counsel further relied on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2010 SCC (Cri) 1371, for the point that “If there is no prima
facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is the
duty of the Magistrate to discharge the accused”. Further, the
learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State
of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2003) 2 SCC 711, wherein it has
been held that “.... Section 227 was incorporated in the Code with a
view to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is a
necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. It is calculated to
eliminate harassment to accused persons when the evidential
materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requirements”.
5. Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State would submit that based on the complaint
given by the defacto complainant / Bakiya, Wife of the deceased
Muniraj, the Respondent Police Registered the case in Crime No.258
of 2020, on 13.05.2020, for the offence under Sections 147, 148 and
302 IPC.. During the course of investigation, on 16.05.2020, the then
Inspector of Police arrested the five named accused viz.,
Venkataraj/A1, Harish/A2, Muniraj/A3, Srinivasan/A4, Harish/A5 and
Kumar/A6 and recorded their confession statements in the presence of
witnesses and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II,House and thereafter, they were remanded into judicial custody.
On the confession of the co-accused, the Petitioner/ A7/Ramesh,
Subramani/A8, Mathesh/A9, Nagesh/A10, Sathish/A11,
Prabakaran/A12 were added as accused. After recording their
confession statements in the presence of the witnesses, they were
produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, House, and
remanded to Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the
respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Hosur in P.R.C.No.9 of 2021 for offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sections 147, 148, 302, 120B, 149, 201 r/w 109 and 114 of IPC.,
against A1 to A12. Latter, the case committed to Court of Sessions,
which is pending trail before the learned Additional District Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.23 of 2023, on 12.01.2023.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further
submit that after perusing the entire records, the learned Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri, rightly dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner for the reason that L.W.15/ Anil Kumar, L.W.19/Murugesh
and LW.20/ Suresh given statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.,
admitting that the Petitioner has given confession statement to the
Police and based on the confession statement, the properties were
recovered in this case and whether such a confession statement was
covered under Section 27(C) of the Indian Evidence Act has to be
looked only at the time of trial. Further submitted that the petitioner
was part of the conspiracy actively taken part in the crime, he was
having a watch on the deceased informed the assailants the
movement of deceased further gave instruction to the other accused
to switch of the Electricity supply facilitating the assailants assault on
the deceased and thereby ensured deceased is done to death. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the Judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh
Rao reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, for the point that “the
revisional Court cannot look into the material produced by the
accused and has to confine itself to the material collected by the
prosecution”. Further, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of
the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
reported in (2021) 11 SCC 191, wherein the Apex Court held that
“the evaluation of evidence on merits is not permissible at the stage of
considering the application for discharge. At the stage of framing of
the charge and/or considering the discharge application, a mini trial is
not permissible”. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
prayed for dismissal of the Revision.
7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is seen from the record that due to previous enmity, on
13.05.2020 at about 6.45 p.m., the accused persons Venkataraj/A-1,
Harish/A-2, Muniraj/A-3, Srinivasan/A-4, Mathesh/A-5 came to house
of the deceased, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with
wooden log, Aruval and other deadly weapons and caused his death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case in Crime
No.258/2020, registered on 13.05.2020, for the offence under
Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC.. During the course of investigation,
on 16.05.2020, the six named accused viz., Venkataraj/A1, Harish/A2,
Muniraj/A3, Srinivasan/A4, Harish/A5 and Kumar/A6 were arrested,
confession statement recorded in the presence of witnesses,
thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II,Hosur and thereafter, they were remanded into judicial custody.
Thereafter, on the confession of co-accused, the role played by the
petitioner confirmed and the petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2020
and recovery made. In these circumstances, the Petitioner/A7 filed a
Petition in C.M.P.No.2415 of 2025 in S.C.No.23 of 2023, before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, to discharge him from
the charges and the same was dismissed on 04.07.2024. Against
which, the present Revision.
9. It is seen that L.W.15/Anilkumar, L.W.19, Muruesh and L.W.20
given 161(3) Statements stating that the accused given confession
statement to the Police and based on the confession statement, the
properties were recovered in this case. It is seen the petitioner had
been actively moving with the other accused when plan was made on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.05.2020 to eliminate the deceased. Pursuance to the conspiracy
on 13.05.2020, the disclosure statement reveals the petitioner was
keeping a watch on the deceased, who had informed the assailants,
further he had also instructed the other accused to switch of the
Electricity supply facilitating the assailants to commit murder. The
contention of the petitioner is factual, the confession, disclosure of
facts, whether the confession of co-accused are corroborated and
supported by material particulars by other witnesses can be gone into
only during the course of trial. Further, as rightly contended by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Petitioner / A-7 given a
confession statement, and such confession statement was covered
u/s.27 (C) of the Indian Evidence Act has to be looked only at the trial
and the issues involved are triable in nature. The petitioner is a
conspirator, conspiracy is hatched in dark and secrecy, there may not
be direct evidence to conspiracy, which can be inferred only during
trial. The trial Court finding that there are prima facie materials
available against the involvement of the accused in the offence, has
rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner/A7.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is made clear that the observation made herein is limited purpose
for deciding the above petition. The trial Court to proceed with the
trial on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this
Revision.
09.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2/mpk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Alandur
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
Pre-Delivery Order made in
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
