State By Inspector Of Vikkiramangalam P.S. v. Jayaraman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY (P.R.C.No.3 of 2008 of Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Jayamkondam Taluk, Ariyalur) State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Vikkiramangalam Police Station ... Petitioner Vs.

Jayaraman

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Suo Motu Case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025. 2.This occurrence was on 22.10.2000. The body was found by a Village Administrative Officer, Kadambur at about 8.00 a.m. and he reported the matter to the Police and accordingly Cr.No.253 of 2000 was registered. After investigation final report filed for the offences under Section 302, 379 and Page No.1 of 6

392 I.P.C. was filed against four accused namely Jayaraman, Sethumani, Ganesan and Chellapan. Of the four, Sethumani died. Since the summons was not served in the P.R.C stage as against A1/Jayaraman, the case against Chellapan and Ganesan was split up on separate dates by way of two sessions cases in S.C.No.161 of 2007 and S.C.No.23 of 2008. 3.During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. The trial Court found that the allegation as per the prosecution in this case is that all these four accused killed the deceased in order to take away his car to Chennai. The trial Court found that except for the confession of the accused there is no other material at all in the case. P.W.5 was examined by the prosecution who have last seen the deceased.

The trial Court has categorically found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused came to Jayamkondam in car and when and how they murdered the deceased. The prosecution has not established any link whatsoever for the recovery of the car from one Mathina car mechanic and the accused persons. The prosecution also did not established as to the ownership of the said car. The RC book, trip sheet of the car were also not produced before the Court. Not even anybody on behalf of the Mathina car company who said to have purchased the car was examined before the Court. The trial Court further Page No.

found that P.W.4 statement cannot in any manner pointed out to the Commission of the alleged murder. Therefore, holding that there is absolutely no evidence the accused who went into trial in mother case were acquitted. As far as this accused is concerned, he is arrayed as accused No.1. There is no other case against this accused Jayaraman. It can be seen that the first accused Jayaraman was not even apprehended during investigation, absconding charge sheet was only filed. Thus, for the occurrence that is said to have happened in the year 2000, for the past twenty-five years the matter is kept pending for the trial of the first accused.

This apart, it is further seen that while splitting up the case in the year 2008 without taking further copies the entire bundle was sent and after trial since the accused were acquitted the bundle was sent straight to records and in view of the efflux of time, it was also destroyed. It is also represented on behalf of the prosecution that they also do not have copies of the depositions and the other statements. Even in the prosecution filed only a copy of the judgment alone is available. This case is just remaining on file. 4.Under these circumstances, even though the offence is an heinous offence, when the very existence of the accused No.1 itself is doubted and for all the above reasons which is recorded, no useful purpose will be served keeping the case pending, in any event it can be seen that there is absolutely Page No.

nothing on merits that is proved by the prosecution. 5.Accordingly, the case in P.R.C.No.3 of 2008 of Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Jayamkondam Taluk, Ariyalur, stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

25.08.2025 ep electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

Page No.4 of 6

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

ep Page No.5 of 6

25.08.2025 Page No.6 of 6