BASHEER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The single accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Madras, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1993 for the charge for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. against him lost his prayer of discharging him from the offence for the reason of no material or evidence relied on by the prosecution filed under Section 227 Cr. P.C. in Cr1. M.P. No. 4114 of 1993 dated 8.10.1993 by the learned Sessions Judge, is the revision petitioner herein challenging the propriety, legdlity and validity of the impugned order in this Revision.

(2.) For an occurrence happened at 7.45 p.m. on 15.12.1991 at Kutcheri Road, about 250 metres from the Police Station, one Kannuthal was stabbed to death and this was reported to the Police immediately by one witness by name Krishnamurthy, who also took the deceased to the hospital. As the injured was brought dead, it was sent to the mortuary and consequently Krishnamurthy gave a written complaint at about 9.00 p.m. on that day. The complaint has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police at about 10.15 p.m. on the same day. It appears that except the complainant as witness No.1, no witnesses were examined on that day. However, it appears that the complainant was examined by the Investigating Officer subsequently on two more occasions and his statement was recorded followed by the examination or the other witnesses. However, the revision petitioner/accused was arrested on 6.1.1992 and kept in custody till he was produced in Court and nothing appears to have been recovered from him or from his custody. After completing the investigation, the respondent had filed a final report before the Court and the copies of the documents of the prosecution under Section 207 Cr. P.C. were furnished to the accused.

(3.) The case was posted for framing of the charge before the learned Sessions Judge. At this stage, a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure viz., Cr1. M.P. No. 4114 of 1993 was filed on behalf of the revision petitioner-accused praying for his discharge from the offence for the reasons that there is no material or evidence or anything available to get him involved in the instant case on hand and also the case against him was a concocted one, that since one of the witnesses by name Panneerselvam was inimical towards him, he was opted by the prosecution subsequent to his arrest for the obvious reasons and that there were no documents or materials attributing any overt act on the part of the petitioner-accused.