Madras High Court
K.Vijayakumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 April, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024
'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 17.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :23.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.822 of 2024
1.K.Vijayakumar
2.K.Suresh
3.A.Suresh ... Petitioners/Proposed Accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkoil Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.18 of 2018) : Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant
2.Sathaiah : 2 Respondent
(R.2 is impleaded as per order
of the Court dated 19.09.2024
in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7458 of 2024
in Crl.R.C.(MD)SR No.19585 of 2024)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm )
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to impugned
order passed in Cr.M.P.No.91 of 2024, dated 19.03.2024 in S.C.NO.202 of 2020
on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
for R.1
: Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
for R.2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 91 of 2024 in S.C.No.20 of 2020, dated 19.03.2024, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions court, Paramakudi, in allowing the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondnet, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.18 of 2018 against four persons for the alleged offences under Sectionis 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024
3. According to the prosecution, on 17.02.2018 at around 7:00 p.m., the de facto complainant was drying chillies in his agricultural field and had fallen asleep there. Similarly, the deceased, Muniyasamy, was also drying chillies in his field and was sleeping nearby. At about 10:30 p.m., when the de facto complainant switched on his torch to check the field, he saw four persons hiding in the shadows with weapons. Upon seeing them, the de facto complainant shouted, prompting the individuals to rush towards Muniyasamy's land. They allegedly abused Muniyasamy in filthy language and attacked him with knives and an aruval, targeting his stomach, neck, and chest. The assailants then threatened the de facto complainant before fleeing the scene.
4. During investigation, on the basis of the statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., came to be recorded from L.W.13-Malarkodi, L.W.14- Govindhammal and L.W.15 – Veeralakshmi and after coming to know from their statements that the petitioners are said to have hatched conspiracy with the other accused to kill the said Muniyasamy, the Investigating Officer has submitted a report on 03.03.2018 adding the petitioners as accused 7 to 9. The deceased who was taking treatment at Government hospital, Paramakudi was referred to 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment, but he succumbed to injuries on 18.02.2018 and hence, the Investigating Officer has filed an alteration report altering the offences from 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C., to Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused named in the F.I.R., along with the accused deletion report deleting the petitioners. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was taken on filed in S.C.No.20 of 2020 against the four accused.
5. During trial, L.W.14-Govindhammal and L.W.13 – Malarkodi have given evidence before the trial Court as P.W.11 and P.W.14 respectively reiterating their stand that the petitioners hatched conspiracy with other accused on 03.08.2017 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the said Muniyasamy was killed. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil Police Station filed the above petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking the addition of the petitioners as accused in Cr.M.P.No.91 of 2024. The existing accused have not chosen to file any counter statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after enquiry has passed the impugned order dated 19.03.2024, allowing the petition filed 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and thereby adding the petitioners as accused 7 to 9 and ordered for issuance of summons to them. Challenging the impugned order, the present revision came to be filed.
6. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Inspector of Police who conducted further investigation has recorded the statements of two police Inspectors under whom the petitioners 1 and 2 were working at that time and also from the third petitioner's employer and on the basis of their statements that the petitioners were at their working place during the relevant point of time, has filed charge sheet deleting the petitioners.
7. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner, a Police Constable was on duty from 02.08.2017 to 03.08.2017 at Madras City Reserve Police in 32nd Battalion, that the second petitioner also a Police Constable was on bandobast duty from 01.08.2017 to 04.08.2017 at Tirunelveli and that the third petitioner was working in Golden Shopping Mall and Hotels Pvt Ltd., Ramanathapuram at the relevant point of time. The Police Inspectors under whom the petitioners 1 and 2 were working, in their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., confirmed their presence on duty at the relevant point of time and 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 on that basis, the Investigating Officer has submitted a deletion report and filed the charge sheet as against the other accused.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the learned trial Judge has miserably failed to consider the deletion report submitted by the Investigating Officer and also the statement of the Police Inspectors under whom the petitioners 1 and 2 were working and the third petitioner's employer, that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered that L.W.13 to L.W.15 are interested witnesses and after the lapse of more than five months, they have given statement about the alleged conspiracy as an after thought to wreck vengeance due to the existing enmity and that the trial Court without considering the other materials in proper perspective has mechanically ordered for the addition of the petitioners as accused.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that during the course of trial, P.W.11 Govindammal, P.W.14-Malarkodi have deposed that the petitioners hatched conspiracy with the other accused on 03.08.2017, that the learned trial Judge after considering the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.14 has 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 rightly allowed the petition and that therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is pertinent to mention that L.W.13 Malarkodi and L.W.14 Govindammal have given statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., stating that they came to know about the conspiracy hatched by the petitioners along with the other accused directly and both of them have informed the above said conspiracy to the deceased.
11. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), during trial both the said witnesses while giving evidence as P.W.14 and P.W.11 respectively have reiterated their version and deposed about the conspiracy allegedly hatched by the petitioners with the other accused. The learned trial Judge while referring the evidence given by P.W.11 and P.W.14, has decided to add the petitioners as accused. But the main contention of the petitioners is that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the statements of two Inspectors of Police under whom the petitioners 1 and 2 were working and the supervisor Thameen Ansari under whom the third petitioner was working and that the trial 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 Court should have considered the deletion report submitted by the Investigating Officer along with the statement of the said witnesses.
12. It is settled law that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to summon a person as an accused should be exercised sparingly keeping in mind all the attending circumstances. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence in Section 319 Cr.P.C., contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in Court in enquiry or trial and the Court cannot add persons as accused on the basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or in the case diary, but must be based on the evidence adduced before it.
13. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami Reddy and another reported in 2007(4) SCC 773 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“13. Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it. If it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word "evidence" in Section 319 contemplates that evidence of witnesses given in Court. Under Sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of Sub- section (4)(1)
(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned.
14. The above position was highlighted in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (2006 (10) SCC 192).”
14. Considering the legal position above referred, the question of considering the materials including the statements recorded during the investigation cannot be looked into, while considering the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge, considering the depositions of P.W. 11 and P.W.14, has rightly come to a decision that the petitioners have to be added as accused in the above case. Hence, the impugned order allowing the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., canot be found fault with. Consequently 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
23.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No SSL To
1. The Additional District Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD).No.822 of 2024 K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
SSL Pre-Delivery order made in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.822 of 2024 23.04.2025 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 03:35:17 pm )