CHANDRIKA KRISHNAN Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the second accused in Cr. No. 100/2009 culminated as PRC. No. 7/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, has come forward with the present petition to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. The criminal proceedings is initiated on the basis of the complaint given by one Vaidyanatha Swamy on 27.05.2009 about the death of one Andre Vizoat caused by murder inside his house. The FIR was registered immediately for the offence under section 302 IPC. As no suspicion was raised against any one, the FIR was not registered against any one. Originally, the case was investigated by Auroville Police Station and the same was thereafter referred to CBCID in 2011. Thereafter, CBCID completed the investigation and file the charge sheet against 11 named accused for the offences under sections 120B r/w 147, 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 IPC and the same was taken up on file as PRC. No. 7/2014, by the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

(2.) THE allegations raised in the charge sheet are that the deceased Andre Vizoat @ Vizoat Andre Elie Paul was a French national, settled down at Turiya Garden, Edayanchavadi and the owner of M/s. Auro Electronics, Puducherry and M/s. Aurozon (India) Pvt. Ltd. and he married one Chandrika Krishnan @ Chandra, who is the petitioner herein/A2 and out of their wedlock, she gave birth to a female child by name Savithri Vizoat @ Gayathri and the deceased and the petitioner along with their female child started living at Turiya House, Edyanchavadi, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District. While so, matrimonial dispute arose between the deceased on one hand and wife and child on other hand and they got separated and the misunderstanding led to civil and criminal proceedings between the two by and against each other. While they were living separately, the petitioner was unable to meet her family expenses as well as educational expenses of her daughter and the petitioner along with her daughter attempted to borrow money and attempted to sell the property to A1 - Dr. Lakshmi Narayanan @ Ramkumar and sold the property measuring 2.81 acres for the sale consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs by two registered sale deeds dated 18.1.2008 in favour of the wife of A1 by name Revathy @ Chinnaponnu and A6 Kannan. When the purchasers attempted to take possession, they were prevented by the deceased, who also laid criminal case against them. As a result, the petitioner was compelled to settle the amount received from A1 and the petitioner also made attempt to sell the companies and the residence, in which the deceased was living as they stand in her name and none were ready either to buy it or lend money against the same. Due to her financial constraints, the petitioner entered into conspiracy with A1 to murder her husband so as to acquire his entire wealth. The first accused, in pursuance of such conspiracy, approached A3 Manikandan, who is a notorious rowdy and A3 gave a plan to his brother A4 Arumugam, who arranged A5 Jana @ Janarthanan, A8 Suresh S/o. Perumal, A9 Palani @ Palanivel and A10 Suresh S/o. Periyannan to execute the plan and they reached the house of the deceased and as per the direction of A3, A4 along with A5 and A8 went to the house of A1 and A1 lent his car as well as cash to A4 and A4 and A5, A8, A9 and A10, who were already present there, along with A6, A7 and A11, who were either closely known to or relative of A1, went to the house of the deceased, waited there for arrival of the deceased and on his arrival into his house from his car at about 2.20 hours on 27.5.2009, A4, A5 and A9 assaulted him by using dangerous weapons and the deceased sustained injuries on various parts of his body and died due to carniocerebral injuries and the dead body was thereafter taken to his farmhouse and thrown on the south western side of the residence and thereafter all the accused flew away from the scene of occurrence. Thus, the allegations raised against A2 in the charge sheet are that A2 due to her previous civil and criminal dispute with the deceased and due to the financial strain suffered by her on account of enimical and non co -operative attitude of the deceased to help her financially and to help her to sell her property conspired with A1 to kill the deceased in order to grab the wealth of the deceased.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would seriously argue that none of the witnesses examined herein and cited on the prosecution side spoke about the involvement of the petitioner either directly or indirectly and the statements made against her are only hearsay in nature and the statements regarding her involvement were recorded from the witnesses not at the first instance, but two years after the investigation was transferred to CBCID. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges laid against her for the act of conspiracy are only by reason of the disputes between herself and her deceased husband and by reason of pendency of civil and criminal cases between each other and except the same, no other material much less legally permissible material is available to connect her in any manner in the preparation for or in the commission of the offence.