MURUGAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner has been filed for transfer of investigation in Crime No.630 of 2020 from the file of the second respondent to the file of CBI or any other independent investigation agency to conduct further investigation or re-investigation.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused trespassed into the defacto complainant's shop, where his elder daughter Jayashree was alone there. The accused persons assaulted her and also gagged her mouth with cloth, tied her hands and legs and poured petrol on her and set fire, then they closed the doors and ran away. He further submitted that as per FIR and the dying declaration of the deceased, the accused persons said to have been poured petrol. However, the second respondent introduced a new version by the confession statement of the accused that they were used kerosine. He further submitted that the victim and her father were illegally doing business by selling kerosine and petrol in their petty shop. Therefore they are capable to differ between the petrol and kerosine.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that, this petition has been filed only to delay the committal proceedings and trial of the case. Already the second respondent completed investigation and filed final report in Crime No.630 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ullundurpettai, and the same has been pending for committal in P.R.C.No.5 of 2020. The crux of the complaint is that the defacto complainant Jayabal is an agriculturalist and also having 2 petty shops in Sirumadurai colony. The defacto complainant has two sons and two daughters. In the year 2013, the accused person, who are all his relatives, along with six others attacked his brother Kumar with knife, for which a case was registered in Crime No.596 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent and it is still pending. Therefore there was an enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused persons.