Allowed

Rajeshwari, F/a 24 Yrs, v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC10 Nov 2021CRL OP/4188/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the final report and charge sheet against two accused for negligence under IPC Sections 284 and 304 in a child death case due to insufficient evidence and hearsay witness testimony. The petition seeking transfer of investigation was dismissed as legally unsustainable following the quashing order.

What did the court decide?

The final report filed against petitioners Rajeshwari and Radha is quashed. The allegation against deceased accused A1 is considered infructuous.

Rajeshwari, F/a 24 Yrs, Vs State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.Nos.4188 & 5592 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 3097 & 3098 of 2017

¶5

Crl. O.P.No.4188 of 2017

¶6

Rajeshwari, D/o. Muniyan 2. Radha, D/o. Velu Gounder ...Petitioners/Accused 2 to 3 Versus

¶7

The State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Villupuram Dt.

¶8

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirukoilur Sub-Division, Tirukoilur, Villupuram Dt. 3. Ariramachandhran, S/o. Kaliyaperumal

¶9

Aiyyanar, S/o. Muniyan ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.4188 of 2017 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to P.R.C.No.94 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirukoilur and quash the same.

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.5592 of 2017 Latha, W/o. Late Kumar ...Petitioner Vs.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

State by Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.455 of 2016) ...Respondent

¶14

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.5592 of 2017 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue direction directing the transfer of investigation of the case in Crime No.455 of 2016 from the file of the respondent police to any other specialised agency like CBCID, Villupuram in order to conduct the investigation in an effective manner in the background of mystery surrounding the death of the petitioner's son Ayyanar, aged 8 years.

¶15

For Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4188 of 2017 : Mr.S.Arivazhagan

¶16

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5592 of 2017 : No appearance

¶17

For Respondent in both Crl.O.P.s : Mr.S.Vinothkumar for Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal case registered for the offence under Section 284, 304(iii) I.P.C. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A2 and A3. A2 is working as Watchmen in the school run by A1. A3 is the owner of nearby land.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that A2 being a Watchman was negligent in allowing the children outside the campus and A3 was cultivating land and he has thrown the pesticide tin in the land negligently. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 03.09.2016 the children, who are studying in the school run by A1, after the school hours used to play in the ground, which was not compounded. Accordingly, they entered the land of A3 and used the pesticide tin for drinking water. As a result, they died in the night, thereby the prosecution has framed charge against all the three accused A1, A2 and A3 for the offence under Sec.284, 304(ii) I.P.C. It is not in dispute that two children were studying in the school run by A1, viz., Anna Theresa Residential School, unfortunately died due to poisonous tin used for

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

drinking water. It is the case of prosecution that when the children entered the land of A3, A3 left the pesticide tin, which was used by the children to have the water. As a result, they died in the night.

¶24

Though the post-mortem certificate indicates that the death is due to poisonous pesticide monochorotopus, the allegation against A2 and A3 is that A2 being night watchman left out the pesticide tin and he was negligent in allowing the children in A3's land and A3 used the pesticide tin negligently and not removed the pesticide tins from the land. Though the prosecution has filed the final report, on perusal of all the witnesses statement, who are examined is only hearsay witnesses except the medical officer's evidence, no evidence available to prove charges. It is to be noted that A2 is a night watchman. A3 is cultivating land. Children died due to the use of pesticide tin negligently. In the statement given by the children shows that they used the tin, which was kept in the shed of A3 for drinking water, that itself clearly show that the pesticide tins were kept only in the godown and not in the field as per the prosecution version.

¶25

In such view of the matter, the entire prosecution materials will not constitute any offence against the petitioners. The evidence of all the witnesses recorded and the materials collected taken as proved will not constitute any offence. Hence, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet filed against A2 and A3 is liable to be quashed. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate that A1 died. Hence, the charge made against A1 has become abated. Accordingly, the entire final report filed by the prosecution against A2 and A3 is quashed and the allegation made against A1 has become infructuous, since A1 died. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.4188 of 2017 is allowed and the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.5592 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

rpp To

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

-do through- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur Police Station, Villupuram Dt. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirukoilur Sub-Division, Tirukoilur, Villupuram Dt. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.S.Arivazhagan, Advocate, S.R.No.57768 CRL.O.P.No.4188 of 2017 and Crl.O.P.No.5592 of 2017

¶33

RSV[co] NSK 29/11/2021

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rajeshwari, F/a 24 Yrs, v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwari, F/a 24 Yrs, v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja @ Salamedu Raja, 42 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by Its

B.Dhanalakshmi, 40 Years, Vs J.Gayathri

K.Subramani, Vs L.Suresh Babu

Alexander, 26 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Prathap M/a 30 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

C.Latha, Vs the Senior Branch Manager