ALAGARSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the appellants, namely, Alagarsamy, original accused No. 1 (A-1), Ponniah, original accused No. 3 (A-3), Jothi, original accused No. 4 (A- 4), Manikandan, original accused No. 5 (A-5), Andichami, original accused No. 7 (A-7), Manoharan, original accused No. 8 (A-8), Renganathan, original accused No. 9 (A-9), Markandan, original accused No. 11 (A-II), Rasam @ Ayyavu, original accused No. 12 (A-12), Sakkaraimurthy, original accused No. 13 (A-13), Alaghu, original accused No. 14 (A-14), Rajendrar;, original accused No. 15 (A-15), Sekar, original accused No. 18 (A- 18), Chockanathan, original accused No. 20 (A-20), Selvam, original accused No. 21 (A- 21), Chinna Odugan @ Chinna Ulunthan, original accused No. 22 (A-22), Ramar, original accused No. 40 (A-40). All these accused persons were convicted by the Trial Court, whose judgment was confirmed by the High Court. All of them were convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called "IPC" for short) and/or Section 149 IPC alongwith other persons on the allegation that they had committed murder of as many as six persons belonging to Adidravida (a Scheduled Caste) community on 30.6.1997. Basically, the charge against all the 40 accused persons, who were tried, was that they were inimical with the persons of Adidravida community in the Village Melavalavu, as there was an election dispute. THIS dispute arose on account of the election of Adidravida community person being elected to the post of Pradhan (President), which was not liked by the Caste Hindus. Ultimately, in order to wreck avenges against the people of Adidravida community, an unlawful assembly was formed near a shop in the Village Melavalavu and the persons belonging to Adidravida community were attacked. The further allegation is that some of the Adidravida community persons including the Pradhan and other office bearers had gone to Madurai to meet the Government officials in pursuance of their demands and while they were resuming by bus, some of the accused persons entered into the bus, armed, and when the bus came in the Village Melavalavu near Todi Shop, accused persons who had travelled in the bus and others who had gathered near the spot, assaulted the persons belonging to Adidravida community including the Pradhan and the other office bearers of the Panchayat and murdered as many as six persons belonging to Adidravida community. Various charges were levelled against 40 persons including the charge under Sections 148 IPC, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 302 substantively, as also the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As many as 17 persons were held guilty by the Sessions Judge under Sections 148 IPC and also under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith offences under some other Sections. Three appeals were filed at the instance of the accused persons. All the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court, dismissing all the appeals and that is how the appellants are before us by way of the present appeal, challenging their conviction and the sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was as follows.

(3.) THE Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, firstly, pointed out the order passed by this Court, whereby the prosecution was directed to produce the FIR Book of the Melavalavu Police Station, in which the FIR dated 30.6.1997 relating to Crime No. 508 of 1997 was reflected. He then pointed out that the prosecution had not produced the said FIR Books nor was there any plausible explanation for this noncompliance. Based upon this argument, Shri Altaf Ahmad further invited our attention to the two reports, they being, firstly, the report by Tahsildar to Collector of the said date and the second being the one authored by District Collector, Madurai sent to Secretary, Public Law and Order Department, Secretariat at Chennai. Our attention was specifically invited to the fact that though the Crime No. 508 of 1997 was reflected in the said reports and though all the facts were also reflected regarding the ghastly incident alongwith the names of the deceased persons and injured persons, yet the names of the accused persons against whom the FIR was filed, were conspicuously absent. We were taken through the reports, particularly, report of the Tahsildar to Collector being Exhibit D-13 and it was pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel that there was a graphic description of the incident in that report. THE background of the incident was also reflected, but excepting the name of Duraipandi (A-2) no other name of the accused persons was mentioned. THE other accused persons were referred to as "Fourteen others". THE Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in Exhibit D- 18, which was a report from the Collector to the Secretary and D-19, which was a second report from the Collector to the Secretary, reporting the law and order situation in Melavalavu on account of this incident, the names of the accused were not to be seen. THE Learned Senior Counsel also invited our attention that it is only in the report dated 17.7.1997 that the Tahsildar has reported the names of as many as 34 accused persons. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel suggests that, in fact, the names of the accused persons were not known to anybody even on that day nor were they reported to the Police Station. THE Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, mocked at the prosecution's claim that the names of the accused persons or as the case may be, majority of them, became known to the investigating agency immediately after the incident through the statement of Krishnan (PW-1). Our attention then was invited to the evidence of Krishnan (PW-1), the injured eyewitness, Rajshekharan (PW-47), the Police Officer, who got the offence registered in the Police Station and Nambi (PW-18), the Tahsildar, who was the author of the report regarding the law and order situation in Village Melavalavu. From this, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that the basic story, as revealed in the so-called FIR, Exhibit P-53 was itself shrouded with mystery and there was absolutely no justification for accepting the claim of prosecution that the names of the accused persons became available to the investigating agency almost immediately. THE Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that under such circumstances, the FIR was liable to be thrown out on this ground alone and the FIR had lost all its credibility, particularly, because the deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecuting agency to suppress the FIR Book, which though demanded right from Trial Court to this Court, was not supplied by the prosecution nor was its mysterious absence explained.