SEENI KONAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS/proposed accused in S.C.No.34 of 1998 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin have preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3616 of 2000 dated 30.10.2000.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE first respondent after completing investigation, laid a charge against the second respondent/accused in S.C. No.34 of 1998 for an offence under Section 302, IPC and it is pending on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin. P.W.1 Gurunathan is the first informant in Crime No.35 of 1997 and on the basis of the complaint only, the first respondent investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. P.W.1 was examined as a witness in the case and on the basis of the evidence, he mentioned the names of the petitioners/proposed accused and stated that they were also involved in the commission of murder of deceased Adinaryanan on 23.4.1997. THEreafter, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to implead the proposed petitioners also as accused in the case. THE second respondent filed a counter and opposed the application and thereafter, after hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the prosecution and ordered issue of summons to the petitioners herein, who were cited as witness No.15 and 16 in the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the said order only, the petitioners/proposed accused have come forward with the present revision petition.

(3.) THE alleged occurrence had taken place on 23.4.1997 and on the complaint of P.W.1, first information report has been registered. Admittedly, neither in the first information report nor in the 161 Cr.P.C, statement of P.W.1 or in any of the documents filed into the court, the involvement of these petitioners is not mentioned. P.W.1 has given a written complaint before the police and it was attested by the Thalayari and he has not mentioned about the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. Now, P.W.1 in the course of evidence stated that the Inspector of Police Mr. Karpagavinayagam threatened him to write like this and so, he had written like that. It is pertinent to point out that even assuming that the present version of P.W.1 is true, there is no explanation as to why P.W.1 has not complained about the alleged threatening by the Inspector of Police for the last three years. If really Ex.P.1 has been drafted on the compulsion or advice of the Inspector of Police, nothing prevented P.W.1 to report the same to the higher authorities or to the concerned courts. Only for the first time on 16.10.2000, he had disclosed the names of these two accused in the course of evidence. In fact, P.W.1 also admitted in the course of evidence that even on the date of giving the complaint, he knew fully well that the names of these two petitioners are not in the complaint. This admission of P.W.1 and the subsequent inaction on his part for a period of three years if taken together would only lead to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioners have been now implicated for obvious reasons.