The Honourable Court quashed the charge sheet against the 19th accused in a group clash case. The sole ground was the later hostile examination of two witnesses who had previously implicated the petitioner, rendering the case devoid of evidentiary basis for conviction.
The impugned charge sheet insofar as the petitioner/19th accused is concerned is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019
P.Jegan .. Petitioner/A-19
Vs. 1.State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Pondicherry. 2.P.Santhosh Kumar .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Assistant sessions Judge at Puducherry and quash the same as for as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Ilangovan For R1 : Mr.D.Bharathachakravarthy Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) For R2 : No appearance ORDER
The petitioner herein has been charged for offences under Section 148, 324, 326, 307 IPC r/w 149 of IPC. The incident which culminated into a First Information Report, is a group clash between two groups of students of the Government Law College of Pondicherry. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 19th Accused. As per the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of L.W.18, L.W.19 and L.W.20, the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the statement therein that he had assaulted the victim with an iron rod. Apart from these three witnesses, there is no other overtact as against this petitioner. Subsequently, during the course of trial, L.W.18 was dispensed with and insofar as L.W.19 and L.W.20 are concerned, they have not implicated the petitioner and there is absolutely no overtact to connect the petitioner with the offences.
2.The copies of the chief examination has been proudced before this Court which was perused. When the only two witnesses had earlier implicated the petitioner in their 161 Cr.P.C., statement, had now turned hostile and have not mentioned the name of the petitioner herein, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how the trial Court can convict this petitioner.
3.In the absence of any incriminating material or evidence as against this petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner need not undergo the ordeal of the criminal proceedings before the trial Court. In view of the conclusion that the trial Court could arrive, this would be an appropriate and fit case where the extraordinary powers of this Court can be invoked for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner.
4.In the light of the above observations, the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Assistant sessions Judge at Puducherry , insofar as the petitioner/ 19th accused is concerned, stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pnn To 1.The Princiapl Asst.Sessions Judge, Puducherry.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Pondicherry.
+1cc to the Public Prosecutor(Puducherry), Advocate SR.78762
Crl.O.P.No.22253 of 2019
BR(CO) CB(01/11/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the charge sheet against the petitioner.
Whether the withdrawal of incriminating testimony by witnesses deprives the trial court of basis to convict the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Jegan
State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Pondicherry
P.Santhosh Kumar
M.S.Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
