Madras High Court
P.Chandra Bose vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.10.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11395 of 2014 and 11396 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2014
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11395 of 2014:
1.P.Chandra Bose
2.S.Pasumalai
3.S.Manimaran ... Petitioners
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Secretary to Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Beach Road,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Central Bureau of Investigation,
rep.by the Joint Director,
Sastry Bhavan,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Station,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11396 of 2014:
1.P.Chandra Bose
2.S.Pasumalai ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Secretary to Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Beach Road,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Central Bureau of Investigation,
rep.by the Joint Director,
Sastry Bhavan,
Chennai-600 006.
4.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Emaneswaram Police Station,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11395 of 2015 filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013 pending
committal proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District and quash the same as far as P.Chandra Bose-Accused
No.18 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013, S.Pasumalai-Accused No.61 in P.R.C.No.21 of
2013 and S.Manimaran-Accused No.42 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013, are concerned;
directing the C.B.I. to further investigate the crimes in Crime No.449 of
2012 on the file of the Paramakudi Town Police Station pending in P.R.C.No.21
of 2013 committal, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
as per law; and directing the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu to pay
fair and just amount as compensation for the sufferings of P.Chandra Bose,
S.Pasumalai and S.Manimaran due to the violations of their rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11396 of 2015 filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in P.R.C.No.17 of 2013 pending
committal proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District and quash the same as far as P.Chandra Bose-Accused
No.9 in P.R.C.No.17 of 2013 and S.Pasumalai-Accused No.10 in P.R.C.No.17 of
2013, are concerned; directing the C.B.I. to further investigate the crimes
in Crime No.147 of 2012 on the file of the Emaneswaram Police Station pending
in P.R.C.No.17 of 2013 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate,
Paramakudi, as per law; and directing the first respondent-State of Tamil
Nadu to pay fair and just amount as compensation for the sufferings of
P.Chandra Bose and S.Pasumalai due to the violations of their rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
!For petitioners in both :Mr.P.Rathinam
the Crl.O.Ps.
For respondents in both :Mr.P.Kandasamy,
the Crl.O.Ps. Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side) for
R1, R2 and R4 to R6
Mr.S.Jeyakumar,
Special Public Prosecutor for R3
:COMMON ORDER
Reserved on : 28.09.2015 Pronounced on : 30.10.2015
Crl.OP.(MD)No.11395 of 2014 has been filed by three petitioners, viz. P.Chandra Bose (Accused No.18), S.Pasumalai(Accused No.61) and S.Manimaran(Accused No.42), seeking directions, (a) to call for the records in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013 pending committal proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the same; (b) directing the C.B.I. to further investigate the crime in Crime No.449 of 2012 on the file of the Paramakudi Town Police Station, pending in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013, pending committal proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and (c) directing the State of Tamil Nadu to pay fair and just amount as compensation for the sufferings of the three petitioners.
2.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11396 of 2014 has been filed by the two petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11395 of 2014, viz. P.Chandra Bose and S.Pasumalai alone, seeking directions, (a) to call for the records in P.R.C. No.17 of 2013 pending committal proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the same; (b)directing the C.B.I. to further investigate the crime in Crime No.147 of 2012 on the file of Emaneswaram Police Station, pending in PRC No.17 of 2013, before the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and (c) directing the State of Tamil Nadu to pay fair and just amount as compensation for the sufferings of the two petitioners.
3.Brief Facts:
Petitioner-Manimaran is working as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation as a permanent employee from 2007. He was working at Mudukulathur Branch till 05.02.2013. He belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. At the time of Thevar Guru Pooja held on 28th, 29th and 30th October 2012, he was working as a Conductor in the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-63-1066, plying between Mudukulathur and Sayalkudi. The duty time was between 5.00 hours to 13.00 hours. After completing the duty, he handed over the cash and key to the successor. By that time, it was 14.00 hours.
4. Due to the death of three members of Thevar community on 30.10.2012 in Paramakudi area, the vehicle movement were completed suspended including the Government Transport buses. Therefore, the petitioner along with others have to stay back in the depot itself. At about 8.00 p.m., the petitioner reached his wife's village Niliampadi situated at about 20 Kms from Mudukulathur and stayed there till 05.11.2012. On 05.11.2012, he was picked up by the Police. When he was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate did not ask him anything and mechanically passed the order of remand. After final enquiry, the police have added the petitioner as Accused No.42 in Cr.No.449 of 2012. The charge sheet was laid on 19.10.2013. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge in C.M.P.No.3379 of 2012 on 21.11.2012. In the bail order, the observation runs as follows:
?The petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days. The petitioner/ accused is working at some other place at the time of occurrence and to prove the same, certificate from the competent authority is produced. Material witnesses have been examined.?
5.Even though the petitioner was suspended initially, the order was revoked on 05.02.2013. The Investigating Agency had removed the names of five men at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Despite the production of the certificate showing that the petitioner was on duty at the time of alleged occurrence on 30.10.2012, the Investigating Agency has deliberately included him as accused. Therefore, the charges must be quashed.
6.In the supporting affidavit of Chandra Bose, it is stated that in respect of innocent murder that took place on 30.10.2012, the petitioner has been added as accused unnecessarily. The petitioner is the founder and General Secretary of Immanuel Peravai (shown as Accused No.18) in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013 and Accused No.9 in P.R.C.No.17 of 2013. The allegation against the petitioner is that he only organised the secret meeting at 6.30 p.m. on 28.10.2012 in the Community Hall and a conspiracy was hatched to attack and kill whoever belonged to Thevar Community entering the area of Ponnayapuram and Pambuvilunthan in Paramakudi Taluk at the time of Thevar Jayanthi between 28th October and 30th October 2012. The Investigating Agency earlier created a false story as if the petitioner organised the conspiracy on 28.10.2013 without mentioning the time through the manipulated confession of Kathirkaman (A-2), confession of Rajkumar (A-19) and Sivakumar (A-40) in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013.
7.The Investigating Agency has preferred five persons belonging to dominant community and made them as eye witnesses to the alleged conspiracy.
They are shown as witnesses Nos.12 to 16 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2013 and 17 to 21 in P.R.C.No.17 of 2013. They are the stock witnesses. The statement of witnesses are stated to have been recorded on 01.02.2013. The alleged conspiracy is stated to have taken place on 28.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m. This delay will expose both the author of the statement as well as the Investigating Agency. At the time of the alleged conspiracy, he was attending a marriage along with one A.Natarajan, a retired Sub-Registrar in Uraikudi Village in Paramakudi Taluk and reached Madurai at about 12.00 noon on 28.10.2012. Then they participated in the marriage of Mr.Periyasamy, an Advocate at Madurai. Then they visited the wife of the petitioner Chandra Bose who got discharged from the hospital on 21.10.2012. It was at about 7.00 p.m. The petitioner had no occasion to go to Paramakudi in the evening at 6.30 p.m. Therefore, the charges are vague and it must be quashed.
8.The petitioner-Pasumalai is a Practising Advocate since 2004. Out of 40,000 people in and around Paramakudi, about 30,000 people belonged to Thevar Community. This Taluk is known for the caste clashes which are mostly initiated by the dominant community due to its economic and social strength. The members of the Scheduled Caste are at the receiving end.
9.As the ruling party is controlled by the dominant community, there was a police firing on 11.09.2011 and seven persons belonging to Scheduled Caste died in that firing. The CBI is investigating the crime pertaining to firing and it is almost over.
10.On 30.10.2012, the State sponsored celebration of Thevar Jayanthi was organised in Pasumpon Village in Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District. The preventive measures were not effective and genuine. The youth belonging to Thevar Community were allowed to run their show. The youth were wearing banians in yellow-mixed green colour with the figures of the caste leaders such as Thevar and Maruthupandiar and travelled in a vehicle with a caste flag tied on the vehicle. The villagers felt that the youth were rushing the vehicle only to attack them and their property. It is not known as to how the driver of the said vehicle died leaving others to escape unhurt. The petitioner was suggesting the people who were innocent and his name has been included only to terrorise the members of the weaker section of Paramakudi. On behalf of them, the petitioner was assisting in Court as Lawyer. The petitioner has no role in the alleged conspiracy. The petitioner's name has been included on account of the statement recorded on 01.02.2013 stated to have been given by Pandidurai, Muthukrishnan, Sethuraman, Thangadurai and Thirumurugan (list of witnesses 12 to 16) who all belonged to Thevar community. The Investigating Agency is playing a dirty game only to satisfy the vested interest of the dominant community.
11.The petitioner was assisting the officers of CBI who were investigating the death of seven dalits due to police firing on 11.09.2011. The petitioner had given 18 documents to the said Agency. This co-operation to the CBI has been treated by the State Police as if he is working against the interest of the State Police.
12.The Investigating Agency arrested Bala @ Parambai Bala on 04.03.2013 while he appeared before the police in compliance with the condition granted in the anticipatory bail and during that time, they had recorded the confession statement of him on 04.03.2013. The petitioner's name has been included as if he was a party to the alleged conspiracy.
13.The sixth respondent has filed the counter affidavit alleging the details of the statement of witnesses who have implicated the accused persons, as follows:
(1)The confessional statement of Shanmugam (A-5), Arumugasamy (A-6), Bala @ Parambai Bala (A-7) and (2)The statements of P.W.7 Pandidurai, P.W.8-Muthukrishnan, P.W.9-
Sethuraman, P.W.20-Thangadurai and P.W.21 Thirumurugan.
14.They have detailed the participation of petitioners 1 and 2 in the community meeting held on 28.10.2012 at Pambuvilunthan Village, wherein they were alleged to have provoked Adi Dravida Community men to indulge in criminal acts against the Thevar Community.
15.Occurrence:
Fifteen Thevar Community men of Melaperunkarai, who were on their way to Pasumpon Village in a Mahindra Van, were waylaid, chased and attacked by Adi Dravida youth near Pambuvilunthan Tank on 30.10.2012 at 11.15 hours. The occupants escaped unhurt and the van driver Sivakumar was beaten to death on the spot and the van was damaged. This is the incident in respect of which a case in Emaneswaram Police Station in Cr.No.147 of 2012 was registered against 31 Adi Dravida Community men.
16.Same day occurrence:
On the same day, at 14.00 hours, two Thevar youth who came across Ponnaiahpuram in a motorcycle, were waylaid by Adi Dravida youth and were beaten to death on the spot besides causing damage to the motorcycle.
17.Another case in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012 was registered against 65 Adi Dravida Community men.
18.The above two incidents are alleged to be an outcome of conspiracy designed by petitioners 1 and 2.
19.Completion of Investigation:
Investigation in Emaneswaram Police Station in Crime No.147 of 2012 has been completed and charge sheet laid under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi on 19.11.2013 against 65 accused in which petitioners 1 to 3 are arrayed as A-18, A-16 and A-42 respectively. Case has been taken on file in PRC No.17 of 2013.
20.The involvement of petitioner No.3 has been spoken to by P.W.1-Mani @Tamil Mani, P.W.2-Keerthi @ Sethupathi and also in the confessional statement of his accomplice Sivakumar A-40 in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012. He was absconding soon after the occurrence and he was arrested on 05.11.2012.
21.Investigation in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012 has been completed and charge sheet laid under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 120-B and 149 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi on 19.10.2013 against 65 accused in which petitioners 1 to 3 are arrayed as A-18, A-16 and A-42 respectively. Case has been taken on file in PRC No.21 of 2013.
22.The contention of the prosecution is that there are no circumstances to justify the claim to quash the case against these accused persons.
23.The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions alleging that the registration of case, falsely against the service minded people by misuse of authority, deserves not only condemnation by the Court but also award of compensation by the Court:
(1)2004 MLJ (Crl.) 360 (Ms.Arokia Mary Lucia v. The State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been held as follows:
?29.In the above circumstances, there is no myth in examining those witnesses, who are all the accused in the petitioner's earlier complaint with whom the police have joined hands with, in order to register a false case against the petitioner, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and the witnesses also, like the parrots, have repeated distorted and invented the inconsistent facts of the case artificially recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in a mechanical and unbelievable manner and this Court cannot be carried away by such artificially made up case failing to resort to the rescue of persons like the petitioner, which would only amount to encouraging such false cases deliberately foisted to cheat the system which, if not quashed, would only give the way for dishonest and unreasonable officers maligning and marring the authority of law and the judicial convictions.
30.Therefore, with the given opportunity, such falsely registered cases put down with the iron hand would serve the purpose not only to rescue those victims of such cases such as the petitioner from the clutches of those, who register the cases crossing the barriers and norms of law but also would serve as a deterrent measure for such authorities from taking advantage of the loopholes to foist the cases against innocent and service minded persons, who are wedded to the social and right causes, like the petitioner. The grave blunders committed on the part of the respondents No.4 and 6 in a deliberate manner needs severe condemnation and strictures besides awarding a reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner as it has been sought for in the prayer column of the petition for all the physical suffering and expenses involved in the legal battle and for the mental agony and afflictions that the petitioner has undergone in the last one year and two months, since being invented and inflicted artificially by respondents 4,6 and 7, joining hands with each other and conspiring to register the above false case against the petitioner in Cr.No.427 of 2002 . Hence, this Court is of the view not only to award sufficient and reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioner but also to direct the first respondent/Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate such disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 6 for misuse of authority in registering the false case against the petitioner joining hands with criminals like the accused in Cr.Nos.423/2002 and 428/2002 of Avalurpet Police Station with the view to malign and mar the reputation and to inflict irreparable loss and hardships to the petitioner.
(2) In CDJ 2001 MHC 011 (Arokiamary Lucia & others v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others, it has been held as follows:
?6.1. The investigation relating to the Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of Gingee Police Station was, accordingly, transferred to Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, and the Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, under the direct supervision of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Chennai, had taken swift acti matter.
6.2. The sincere and dedicated service rendered by Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police and her team of Pol 7.1. In the light of the observations of this Court dated 4.12.2001 made with reference to the report of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, dated 4.12.2001, the Government, without standing on any technicalities, apart from extending their helping hand to provide medical aid to the victim at the States expense, have also sympathetically considered the sufferings and needs of and generously sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees five lakhs only) as financial assistance, by passing a Government Order, namely G.O.(2D) No.346 Home (Police.XII) Department, dated 12.12.2001. ?
(3)(1993) 2 SCC 746 (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa), wherein it has been held as follows:
?This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers.to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr., [1983] 3 SCR 508 granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the Courts have molded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction.
In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply And the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. Some of those situations have been identified by this Court in the cases referred to by Brother Verma, J. In the facts of the present case on the findings already recorded, the mode of redress which commends appropriate is to make an order of monetary amend in favour of the petitioner for the custodial death of her son by ordering payment of compensation by way of exemplary damages. For the reasons recorded by Brother Verma, J., I agree that the State of Orissa should pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Board. I concur with the view expressed by Brother Verma, J. and the directions given by him in the judgment in all respects.?
(4)(1991) 4 SCC 406 (Delhi Judicial Service Association v.State of Gujarat), wherein it has been held as under:
?We are constrained to observe that the State Government did not immediately take effective steps against the erring officials. In spite of the direction issued by this Court the erring Police Officers were neither arrested nor placed under suspension. It was only after this Court took serious view of the matter and directed the State Government to suspend the erring Police Officers and arrest them, the State Government moved in the matter. The apathy of the State Government in taking effective action against the erring Police Officers leads to an impression that in the State of Gujarat, Police appears to have upper-hand, as the administration was hesitant in taking action against the erring Police Officers. If this practice and tendency is allowed to grow it would result in serious erosion of the Rule of Law in the State. We hope and trust that the State Government will take effective measures to avoid re-occurrence of any such instance. The State Government should further take immediate steps for the review and revision of the Police Regulations in the light of findings recorded by the Commission.?
(5)(1985) 4 SCC 677 (Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, wherein it has been held as follows:
?If the personal liberty of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals ! Police Officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. However the two police officers, the one who arrested him and the one who obtained the orders of remand, are but minions, in the lower rungs of the ladder. We do not have the slightest doubt that the responsibility lies elsewhere and with the higher echelons of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but it is not possible to say precisely where and with whom, on the material now before us. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs 01 otherwise is now established by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr. 1983 (3) SCR 508 and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India 1984 AIR SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh.?
(6)(1983) 4 SCC 141 (Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar), wherein it has been held as follows:
?Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well-known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.?
The dictum laid down in those decisions are admirable and there cannot be any quarrel over the proposition. But, when the question is, whether it is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, the answer is no, in view of the following discussions.
24.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that these three accused persons are not at all involved in the occurrence and their plea of alibi have not been considered by the Investigating Officer.
24.1. The plea of alibi is a question of fact to be proved by the petitioners at the time of trial by placing unimpeachable materials. There are no materials placed before this Court to convincingly and conclusively establish that they were elsewhere at the time of incident and they could not have been present at the place of occurrence at the time alleged. Production of materials and the evidence of the petitioners may be required to substantiate the claim of alibi.
25. Yet another contention is that there is delay in recording the statement of witnesses and that itself will expose the falsity of the prosecution case. The delay in recording of the statements may reflect upon the credibility of the witnesses speaking about the incident, but if there is a convincing explanation as to why these statements were given belatedly by the witnesses, there is a scope for the Court in accepting the same depending upon the reasons alleged. Therefore, the mere delay in recording the statements of witnesses cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings.
26.The next contention is that based upon the manipulated confession of A-2, A-19 and A-40, the prosecution has implicated the petitioners in a charge of conspiracy. This contention also cannot be accepted as the validity and the nature of confessional statement is yet to be tested before the Court. There is no basis to claim that the confessional statement is a manipulated statement. Only during trial, it would be evident whether the statement is manipulated or it is true and voluntary.
27.It is contended that in the bail order produced, there is a mention that the petitioner Manimaran was elsewhere at the time of incident, according to the certificate given by the employer. No doubt, the employer might have given the certificate stating that the petitioner was elsewhere. But, whether that certificate would show that it was humanely impossible for the petitioner to reach the place of occurrence and that the distance and time involved would have made the petitioner to reach the place of occurrence. Material to such an extent is not available in this case. These grounds may be good grounds for the plea of acquittal, if the plea is established during trial and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings, when there is no supporting material.
28.The fact remains that already final report has been filed before the Court. The very plea taken by the petitioners coupled with the counter affidavit filed detailing the materials which implicate the petitioners herein would go to show that it is not a case for discharge. The plea taken by the accused persons herein no doubt requires careful scrutiny, detailed examination and evaluation and if it is established by clinching evidence that it is true, then they can place the plea for acquittal before the Trial Court.
29.The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case even though the general principles laid down in those cases, are applicable to any cases of this nature.
30.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Beach Road, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Sastry Bhavan, Chennai-600 006.
4.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
6.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
7.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .