SUJAKHANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six precious lives were snatched away in a gruesome manner by the merciless act of the criminals. It all happened on the night intervening 30.09.2012 and 01.10.2012. Mrs. Kalimuthu, a woman, aged about 30 years, her father and four children were all sleeping in then-lonely house at Thoppuvalasai Village in Ramanathapuram District. They would have never anticipated that end to their lives was fast approaching. It is alleged that by around 01.00 AM, when they were fast asleep, their house was burnt into ash. They also perished in flames. This occurrence was not witnessed by anyone. On the next day, viz., on 01.10.2012, at about 9.00 a.m., one Vallaichamy, who is a relative of the deceased, made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, upon which the present case in Crime No. 301 of 2012 was registered under Sections 147, 436 and 302 IPC. The case was investigated and finally on 29.12.2012, one Mr. P. Jayachandran, the Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, filed a final police report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram. In the said final report, he had reported that a total number of nine persons were involved in the occurrence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 109 and 436 r/w 109 IPC against the accused. On committal, the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner - Mr. A. Sujakhani, is the seventh accused in the case. He filed a petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in Cr.M.P. No. 2084 of 2013 seeking discharge. In the said petition, he alleged that there was no evidence whatsoever collected against him and the entire final report was based only on the confession allegedly made by the first accused to the investigating officer during the course of investigation. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, however, inter alia held that the admissibility or acceptability of the confessions are all matters to be decided at the time of trial. Thus according to the learned Sessions Judge, there were grounds to frame charges against the accused. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed Cr.M.P. No. 2084 of 2013, by order dated 29.10.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) Before proceeding further, let me narrate the contents of the final report filed by Mr. P. Jayachandran, upon which cognizance was taken. According to the said final report, the deceased were, for a long time, residing in the house which was burnt. Her father and four children were also residing with her. The land actually belonged to one Louis Raj, who has been arrayed as the sixth accused in the case. There was an arrangement between the sixth accused and the present petitioner, by which the present petitioner offered to pay some amount of consideration for the land and to sell the land to various other persons. As per the said arrangement, the present petitioner sold away the properties to various persons and out of the said consideration, he paid the amount, as agreed upon, to the sixth accused. The sixth accused, accordingly, executed sale deeds in favour of the purchasers.

(3.) It is the further case that the deceased, who had no right whatsoever on the land, refused to vacate. The family members of the deceased were often threatened to vacate. There were also proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the other authorities between them. Since the deceased family did not vacate the land and hand over vacant possession to the purchasers, there developed ill-feeling, which later on developed into a very strong motive for Mr. Louis Raj - 6th accused and the petitioner herein. According to the final report, seven days prior to the alleged occurrence, there was a conspiracy. In the said conspiracy, the accused Nos. 1, 6 & 7 participated. The conspiracy was to engage hirelings to do away with the entire family members of the deceased. Regarding this conspiracy, though in the final report, there were allegations and cognizance was taken by the Court, there were no materials collected to even make out a prima facie case to frame charge of conspiracy, on this aspect, against the petitioner, except the confession statement said to have made by the first accused on his arrest to the Police.