K SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th accused is the petitioner herein. The petitioner is charged for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 (6 counts) r/w. 120B and 109 IPC for an act of conspiracy with other accused and act of instigation to murder the entire family of one Kuppuraj, who was the retired Inspector of Police. The allegations raised in the charge sheet are that one Kuppuraj, who was the retired police officer and one of the deceased, owned 6.82 acres in various survey numbers and he settled major portion of the same in favour of the minor son of one of his predeceased son and also in favour of other son, thereby neglected the remaining son Sivaguru, who is arrayed as A1 and due to which, A1 developed ill feelings against his father and other family members and sought for help of the petitioner herein/A5 and conspired with him. In pursuance of the same, A1 executed one sale agreement in favour of one Senthilkumar on 24.5.2003 and general power of attorney on 9.8.2007 in favour of the petitioner herein/A5, thereby civil suits came to be instituted by both the groups against each other in respect of the property. Thereafter, A1 and A5 started creating trouble to Kuppuraj and his family members, in whose favour the lands were settled. However, the general power of attorney executed in favour of A5 was cancelled on 1.7.2008 and another power of attorney came to be executed in favour of Sampath/A6 in respect of the same property on 7.7.2008 and on the strength of the same, A6 executed sale agreement in favour of Sekar/A8. All the documents were created by A1 along with his family members arrayed as A2 to A4, in order to grab the lands from Kuppuraj, in connivance with other accused. At last, AI Sivaguru frustrated over his inability to obtain the original document relating to the properties from Kuppuraj, at the instigation of his family members/A2 to A4 and in connivance with A5 to A8 decided to do away entire family members of Kuppuraj and in continuance of the same, A1 along with his minor son Gokulnath armed with deadly weapons and trespassed into the house of Kuppuraj at 8.30 p.m. on 12.8.2010 at Dhasanaickanpatti and murdered Kuppuraj and his wife, Rathinam S/o. Kuppuraj and his wife and two daughters.

(2.) The criminal law is set in motion in connection with the occurrence on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer of Nillavarpatti Group Dhasanaickanpatti and the same was registered as FIR in Mallur Police Station Crime No. 222 of 2010 on 13.8.2010 and the same was investigated into and the culmination of the investigation is SC. 185/2011 on the file of II Additional District Sessions Court, Salem. The petitioner herein/A5, after duly entering appearance in SC. 185/2011, filed a discharge petition in CMP. 100/2012 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is, except confession statement of co-accused, no material or circumstance available to prove the act of conspiracy between the parties and participation of the petitioner herein in the occurrence in any manner and as the confession statement of the co-accused cannot be independently construed to be evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and failure of A1 to whisper anything in his statement about the conspiracy and abetment of A5 and in the absence of any legally permissible evidence, to arrive at finding of guilty of the petitioner/A5 for the offences as stated above, no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the petitioner. The discharge petition was seriously opposed by the respondent/complainant.

(3.) The trial court disposed of the discharge petition along with similar petitions filed by other accused by a common order dated 25.2.2013, thereby dismissed all the petitions on the ground that at the time of framing charge, the court is bound to take the materials placed before it as true and if it discloses a grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained and if on the basis of the materials on record, the court can form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, the court can frame the charge and that, the statement of witnesses, documents and material objects produced on the side of the prosecution reveals that there was property dispute between the family of Sivaguru viz., A1 to A4 and others and the family of Kuppuraj resulting in civil and criminal proceedings and A1 and A2 unable to get an early relief, approached the petitioner herein/A5 Suresh Kumar, who aided and abetted A3 and A4 for selling 1/3 share of the property and A5 with the help of A6 to A8 created sale agreements and power deeds to grab the property and when the deceased strongly resisted the attempts made by A5 to grab the property, A5 to A8 instigated and abetted AI to commit the murder of the deceased with the active connivance and co-operation of A2 to A4 and all the accused conspired to eliminate the deceased with an intention to grab the property of the deceased and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and abetment, A1 committed the murder of all the 6 persons, as such, the materials produced by the prosecution prima facie makes out sufficient ground for framing charge against the accused. Aggrieved against the same, A5 has come forward with this criminal revision.