Ms. Keerthani, v. State By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. Nos.13463 and 13869 of 2016 and Crl.M.P. Nos.6913, 6914, 7082 and 7083 of 2016 Keerthani Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.13463 of 2016 K. Nallusamy Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.13869 of 2016 vs.
State by the Inspector of Police Paramathi Police Station Namakkal District (Crime No.195/2012) Subramaniam Respondent in both the petitions (R2 impleaded as per order dated 22.07.2016 in Crl.M.P. No.7674 and 7806 of 2016) Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.13463 of 2016:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to call for the records in S.C.No.23 of 2015 and to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.23 of 2015 pending on the file of Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-Mahila Court) Namakkal, in Crime No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Namakkal District. Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.13869 of 2016:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.C. No.23 of 2015 pending on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court at Namakkal and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. For petitioner in Mr. S. Ashok Kumar Crl.O.P. No.13463 of 2016 Sr. Counsel for for Mr. A. Sasidharan For petitioner in Mr. A. Ramesh, Sr. Counsel Crl.O.P. No.13869 of 2016 for Mr. C. Arun Kumar For R1 in Mr. C. Emalias both the Crl.O.Ps.
Addl. Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to call for the records in S.C. No.23 of 2015 pending on the file of the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal in Crime No.195 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Namakkal District and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State.
On the complaint lodged by one Subramanian, the father of the deceased Vijayalakshmi, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.195 of 2012 on 16.06.2012 for offences under Section 498-A and 366 IPC against one Natarajan, Nallusamy, Amirtham, Dharmalingam and Revathy. In the complaint, it was alleged that Natarajan (A1) got married to Vijayalakshmi on 19.11.2010 and she was subjected to cruelty by Natarajan (A1) and his family members. Further, it was alleged in the complaint that Vijayalakshmi is missing from 06.06.2012 and her whereabouts are not known. While investigation was in progress, Natarajan (A1) was arrested by the police and on interrogation, he disclosed certain startling facts which are confessional in nature, pursuant to which, the dead body of Vijayalakshmi was exhumed on 15.07.
2012 and the case was altered to one under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC and after completing the investigation, the police filed a final report against 7 persons, viz., Natarajan-A1, Keerthani-A2 (a student of Natarajan, who is alleged to be having illicit intimacy with Natarajan), Nallusamy-A3 (Natarajan's father), Amirtham-A4 (Natarajan's mother), Dharmalingam-A5 (Natarajan's sister's husband), Revathi-A6 (Natarajan's sister) and Chinnappan-A7 (Natarajan's maternal uncle).
It is the case of the prosecution that Natarajan (A1) married Vijayalakshmi and their marriage ran into rough weather, because, Natarajan had developed illicit intimacy with Keerthani (A2), his own student, which was objected to by Vijayalakshmi and final report was filed for the offences under Section 362,364, 302, 201, 404, 212, 120-B and 109 IPC. In order to marry Keerthani (A2), it is alleged that the accused had conspired to get rid of Vijayalakshmi and hence, the charge against them. It is also the prosecution case that Natarajan (A1) is a Casanova and is prone to develop intimacy with women. This is based on the averment in the final report that he was having intimacy with one Chitra who used to stay in the house when Vijayalakshmi was away.
The specific case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the
final report, reads thus:
"On 08.06.2012 when the first accused was away from his house, the deceased Vijayalakshmi came to know about his illegal contact with the witness Chitra, through the witness Buvaneswari who is the owner of the house of A1 and when the first accused returned back, the deceased Vijayalakshmi questioned him about his illegal activities and then both had wordy quarrel and the first accused decided to do away with the deceased Vijayalakshmi as per the abetment of A2 and after that the first accused enticed the deceased Vijayalakshmi and took her to Krishnan Odai, situated near to his house at Chelliamman nagar.
In the course of same transaction on 08.06.2012 at 10.30 P.M. at Krishnan Odai, Chelliamman Nagar on Kattupackam to Gopura Nallur Road, the first accused stabbed the deceased Vijayalakshmi with knife, a deadly weapon, on her neck and left chest repeatedly, with intention of causing her death and with knowledge that he would there by cause the death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the deceased Vijayalakshmi died on the spot due to "stab injuries to neck and chest" and there by the A1 committed an offence punishable under Section 364 and 302 IPC while the A2 committed and offence punishable under Section 364 and 302 r/w 109 IPC." In this background, Chinnappan (A7) filed Crl.O.P.No.29368 of 2014 to quash the prosecution against him on the ground that there is no iota of material implicating him in the offence.
This Court went into the entire aspect and by order dated 15.12.2014 in Crl.O.P. No.29368 of 2014, quashed the prosecution against Chinnappan (A7). Thereafter, Dharmalingam (A5) and Revathy (A6) filed Crl.O.P. No.712 of 2015 for quashing the prosecution, which was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who also went into the entire prosecution records and allowed the application on 10.03.2015 and quashed the prosecution as against them. Now, Nallusamy (A3) and Keerthani (A2) are before this Court by way of the present Criminal Original Petitions. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the prosecution, Natarajan (A1) had taken Vijayalakshmi to a canal hear his house and had stabbed her to death and burnt her and buried her there itself.
Initially, the police registered a case only for offences under Sections 498-A and 366 IPC and during the course of investigation, Natarajan (A1) voluntarily surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal and on intimation, the respondent police took custody of Natarajan and during investigation, he spilled the beans.
herein had conspired with Natarajan (A1) to get rid of Vijayalakshni. But, this Court does not find any material to show that there was a prior conspiracy between Natarajan (A1) and the petitioners herein for getting rid of Vijayalakshmi. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court, the police confession of Natarajan (A1), wherein, he has stated that he had planned with Keerthani (A2) and discussed with her over mobile phone as to how Vijayalakshmi has to be murdered and that after committing murder, he has confided in Dharmalingam (A5) who, in turn, is said to have informed Nallusamy (A3) and Chinnappan (A7).
It is trite that the confession of an accused to the police officer is totally inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is not worth the piece of paper on which it is written save as to the discovery of a fact under Section 27, ibid. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the police confession of Natarajan (A1) to mulct criminal liability on the petitioners herein.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was not done properly inasmuch as though the police had the sim cards used by Natarajan (A1), they did nothing further in the matter.
Be that as it may, excepting the police confession of Natarajan (A1), there is no other prima facie material to fasten the charge against the petitioners herein.
Accordingly, the proceedings in S.C. No.23 of 2015 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court at Namakkal are quashed. However, in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, [(2014) 3 SCC 92], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, has held that even if the prosecution is quashed against some persons, yet, if materials against them surface during further investigation or during trial, they can be impleaded as accused. The right to conduct further investigation is always available to the police, of course, after taking formal leave of the Court as held in Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali [2013 (5) SCC 762].
Both the Criminal Original Original Petitions are allowed with the above observations. Connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar
To The Inspector of Police Paramathi Police Station,Namakkal.
The District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-Mahila Court) Namakkal The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104 +1 cc to Mr.A.Sasidharan,advocate,sr.44448 +2 cc's to Mr.C.Arunkumar, advocate,sr.44301. nm(co) krd 16/8 Common Order in Crl.O.P. Nos.13463 and 13869 of 2016