The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offenses under Sections 201 and 304(2) IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence independent of the petitioners' confession to substantiate the charges.
Proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri are 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.
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018 and
Crl.M.P.No.11166 of 2018
...Petitioners
-Vs-
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri District. (Crime No.639/2017)
... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the complaint in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sakkarapani
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the
records relating to the complaint in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.
Page 2 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
the body near Thadangam Fly over bridge. Hence, the complaint. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. After seeing
the body, the offence was altered into Sections 201 and 304(2) IPC.
complaint as against the deceased or two other friends. No FIR has been registered for snatching of her chain. According to the said Kruthiga, she informed to the petitioners about the chain snatching when they were sitting together. Immediately, the petitioners along with other villagers went to the place of occurrence and made search of the accused. Later, they found that the deceased and his friends were drinking alcohol in the place of Vennampatti Village, Ashok Nagar, behind the land which belongs to one Govindaraj. After seeing the petitioners and the villagers,
they immediately ran away. While chasing, the deceased hit on a big stone and fell down. Therefore, he sustained grievous injuries and died. Thereafter, the deceased body was taken and thrown away near the Thadangam Fly over bridge. Initially, the respondent had registered the
FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, the final report has been filed for the offences under Sections 201 and 304(2)
Page 3 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
IPC. Now it is pending for committal in P.R.C.No.06 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.
Page 4 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
charge sheet, it was not filed by any malice or motive. Other evidences
are clearly corroborated with the confession statement of the petitioners. Thus, it is clear that only while chasing the deceased by the petitioners, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Due to the grievous injuries, he died. Immediately, the petitioners had taken the body and thrown under the Thadangam fly over bridge. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment.
statement, no other material was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the offences under Sections 201 and 304(2) of IPC. As stated supra, the said Kruthiga was not examined and no statement was recorded from her, in order to substantiate the contention as if her chain was snatched by the deceased and the same was informed to the petitioner along with other villagers and thereafter, they found that the deceased and two other friends were consuming alcohol and immediately after seeing the petitioners and other villagers they ran away from that place. Further, no complaint was lodged by the said Kruthiga for snatching of her chain. No recovery was made from the deceased or from
Page 5 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
his two friends. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to proceed
with the Trial as against the petitioners. In order to solve the crime, the
petitioners have been falsely implicated as accused with a story.
the petitioners and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri is hereby quashed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.10.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn
Page 6 of 7
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
To
Crl.O.P.No.20714 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.11166 of 2018
10.10.2023
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 201 and 304(2) IPC should be quashed due to lack of corroboration and absence of independent evidence against the petitioners.
Whether the prosecution evidence consisting solely of a confession statement is sufficient to sustain the charges.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Velangkanni
Kishore
The State
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
