G.SELVAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that this petition is filed seeking direction against the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District to conduct joint trial in S.C.No.12 of 2009 along with S.C.No.13 of 2009.

(2.) It is his further submission that the case arose out of the same transaction in which two complaints were received from the brother and brother-in-law of the deceased persons. Two persons who were brothers were murdered on the same day on different time on 29/8/2005. One of the persons died on the spot and the other person succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. The brother in law and brother of the two deceased persons were the De-facto complainants. Based on the complaint, two First Information Reports were registered in Crime Nos.333 and 334 of 2005 on the file of the Bhoothapandy Police Station. In Crime No.333 of 2005, the De-facto complainant was the brother-in-law of the deceased person and in Crime No.334 of 2005, the De-facto complainant was the brother of the deceased person. In the light of the two First Information Reports, the Investigation Officer ought to have clubbed the investigation. Instead he had proceeded with two separate investigations and had laid two final reports. It ought to have been clubbed and a single final report ought to have been filed. Now, there are two First Information Reports for two murders which took place on the same day within a time gap of one or two hours. In Crime No.333 of 2005, the trial had been completed and it reached the stage of arguments, in S.C.No.12 of 2009, whereas the trial in other case is yet to commence. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that due to the non-commencement of the trial in the other sessions case which is also connected with the same Crime Number, the accused are prejudiced. The Petitioners are arrayed as A-1 to A-6, A-8 and A-9, A-7 died during the trial. Therefore, he seeks direction of this Court to stay the trial in S.C.No.12 of 2009 till the trial in S.C.No.13 of 2009 commences and concludes.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the first Respondent, would submit that the Petitioners herein had been absconding for such a long time. If they had any objections they ought to have raised before the commencement of trial, but they have allowed the trial Court to proceed with the trial till it reached the stage of arguments. Only then they had filed this petition and their only contention is to derail the trial. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on Sec. 219 of Cr.P.C in support of his contention. Further, he would submit that even though the Sessions case is of the year 2009, they had been evading the trial all these years by which one of them had been absconding at one point of time, thereby, delayed the trial over a period of years. Even after the case had reached the stage of arguments after about 14 years, they have now come before this Court to stay the trial in S.C.No.12 of 2009 which had already reached the stage of arguments, till the trial in S.C.No.13 of 2009 is completed.