Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2544 (MAD)

V. Andiappan v. The Inspector of Police & Others

2009-07-22

C.S.KARNAN

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition for direction to direct the learned Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, to commit the case in E-5, Arambakkam Police Station Crime No.426 of 2001 now pending trial as the case in C.C.No.339 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, to the Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, for further proceedings under Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The petitioner contended in the petition that he was examined as the prosecution witness No.6 in C.C.No.339 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri, for a case registered on an offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 324, 337 and 307 IPC. Subsequently, the said case was altered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 351, 332, 324, 336 r/w.149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case was that the petitioners son, by name M.Gnanapraksh was attacked by the accused persons when he attempted to prevent the accused from disturbing the panchayat polls held on 110. 2001. The petitioner and the first accused namely, Arasu, son of Govinda Reddy were the rival candidates for the post of panchayat presidents. The petitioner further contended that the respondents 2 to 29 / accused 1 to 28 attacked the petitioners son, Gnanaprakash, now deceased, with sticks, stones and by kicking him on the stomach with the result, the victim sustained internal bleeding injuries. Immediately, the said Gnanaprakash was admitted in the hospital on 110. 2001 and later he succumbed to the injuries sustained and died in the hospital on 210. 2001. 4. The petitioner, immediately, filed another complaint on 210. 2001 to the respondent police informing them about the death of his son and that was as a result of the injuries sustained by him on 110. 2001 at the hands of the respondents 2 to 29 /accused 1 to 28 and consequently, the first respondent/complainant altered First Information Report dated 210. 2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 324, 332, 307 and 302 IPC and the First Information Report copy was sent to the Court. 2001 at the hands of the respondents 2 to 29 /accused 1 to 28 and consequently, the first respondent/complainant altered First Information Report dated 210. 2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 336, 323, 324, 332, 307 and 302 IPC and the First Information Report copy was sent to the Court. Even though, the first respondent had informed the petitioner that the case under Section 307 IPC has been altered into an offence under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner was shocked to notice that when the final report was filed in the year 2003, the major offences of 307 and 302 IPC were completely deleted and the accused were sought to be proseucted only for offences under Sections 147, 148, 352, 332, 336 and 324 r/w. 149 IPC by completely suppressing the death of the petitioners son, which was a direct consequence of the above mentioned incident. 5. When the petitioner approached the respondent police again and questioned them as to why the case was not registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he was informed by the respondent police that the Additional Public Prosecutor will submit his opinion and that the case will be sent to the Sessions Court in due course. However, the trial of the above mentioned case has commenced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, itself and inspite of evidence supporting the offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Magistrate has not taken any steps to refer the case to the Court of Sessions, but on the contrary the Magistrate is attempting to dispose of the case. 6. Further, the petitioner had filed a copy application seeking for a copy of the entire charge sheet in the above mentioned case along with the copies of deposition of PW.1 to PW.15 and other important documents mentioned therein, and the petitioner was unable to get the same. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Honourable Court by way of Criminal Original Petition No.20279 of 2006 for direction to the Magistrate to issue the certified copies of the documents sought by the petitioner. Even though this Court has given necessary direction to the Magistrate, the petitioner has alleged that he could not get the same from the learned Magistrate so far. Even though this Court has given necessary direction to the Magistrate, the petitioner has alleged that he could not get the same from the learned Magistrate so far. Further, the petitioner contended that the petitioner was examined as PW.6, when he deposed that his son was attacked and killed due to injuries caused to his son by the accused 1 to 28 on 110. 2001. 7. The petitioner further contended that on 110. 2001, one Mr.Lakshmipathy, Head Constable, who was attached to the E-5, Arambakkam Police Station informed the respondent police about this incident which occurred on 110. 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 210. 2001 stating that his son died in the hospital due to injuries sustained by the attack of the accused. Further, he requested the respondent police to send the body for postmortem. 8. The learned counsel for the State submitted that totally there are 26 witnesses in the said occurrence and that most of the witnesses have been examined; that the case is in a part heard stage. 9. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 28 argued the case, vehemently, for their respective parties. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the occurrence happened on 110. 2001, in public place, ie., School, in which election booth had been set up. At the time of polling, the said incident happened due to rivalry between two groups. The same was witnessed by the village people. The said occurrence is a public crime and so, the respondent police is the competent authority and responsible for proceeding with the case for prosecuion side. So, for public satisfaction and considering the First Information and contents of the petition and nature of the occurrence, this Court directs the first respondent/Inspector of Police to place all connected records before the learned State Public Prosecutor for his legal opinion and proceed with the case in accordance with law, as early as possible. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.