RAMASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of one occurrence namely, custodial death, a crime was registered in Crime No.5 of 1994 on the file of C.B.C.I.D Head Quarters, Chennai against six persons. However, it appears from the materials on record, that two sessions cases came out of that one incident namely, S.C.No.183 of 1995 and S.C.No.150 of 1997. IN each case three accused were put up for trial. Substantial evidence was recorded in both the sessions cases separately, though the evidence was almost similar. Almost at the fag end of the trial, it appears wisdom dawned not only on the investigating agency but also on the trial court as well as the counsel for the accused, as a result of which, all the six accused were brought under one umbrella namely, in S.C.No.183 of 1995. The evidence of some witnesses examined in the latter case was transposed as evidence in S.C.No.183 of 1995. Then analysing the evidence of the witnesses in S.C.No.183 of 1995 by a common judgment dated 31.5.2004 in both the Sessions cases the Court of Sessions, namely, Fast Track Court No.III, Vridhachalam acquitted A.4 of all the charges levelled against him convicted A.5 - we will refer to the details of the offences later on, and sentenced him to pay only a fine and acquitted A.6. A.5 has accepted the conviction and sentence and therefore he had not filed any appeal against his conviction before this court. A.3 is before this court in C.A.No.735 of 2004 and A.1 and A.2 are before this court in C.A.No.738 of 2004 . The State is before this Court in C.A.No.668 of 2005 challenging the acquittal of A.6. Heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the convicted accused and for the acquitted accused in the appeal filed by the State and Mr.N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vice versa.

(2.) IN this judgment, we will refer to the parties to the appeals in the same rank in which they were arrayed before the trial court in S.C.No.183 of 1995. IN short, the prosecution case is that in the course of investigation in another crime registered on the file of Kammapuram Police Station for the offence of burglary and suspecting the involvement of Rajakannu in that case, brought to the police station some persons at the first instance some other persons at the second instance in the interregnum the suspected accused Rajakannu was also apprehended and brought to the police station and in the course of their presence in the police station, some of the persons were assaulted and Rajakannu was done to death in the police station. The police personnel also attempted to outrage the modesty of P.W.6 and therefore punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. is also one of the accusations. We will give in detail, a little later in this judgment the nature of the charges framed finding rendered by the court below and the sentence imposed. The prosecution, to substantiate their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 56 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.75 and M.Os.1 to 5. The defence did not let in any oral evidence. But however they marked Exs.D.1 to D.12 on their side.

(3.) P.W.49 is one of the Inspectors of Police, who was assisting the Deputy Superintendent of Police Venkusha in the investigation. Since Venkusha is dead, he had deposed on the investigation done by Venkusha. Hereafter in this judgment we will refer Mr.Venkusha, Deputy Superintendent of Police as the "Investigating Officer". "The Investigating Officer went to Kammapuram Police Station on 11.5.1994 and with the help of P.W.34 and another prepared a rough sketch of the police station. P.W.34 is the Senior Draftsman in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and as requested by the Investigating Officer, he prepared the sketch/blue print. The Investigating Officer went to the Village to examine P.Ws.1,3,4 and 5. But as they were not available in the Village, he could not examine them. The Investigating Officer went on probing further from the nearby police station as to whether any crime have come to be registered either under Section 304A I.P.C. or under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer came across a crime registered in Meensurrity Police Station in Crime No.167 of 1993 under Section 304A I.P.C., on 22.3.1993. The Investigating Officer verified the case diary in that crime number and had a look at the photographs and the negatives available there. The investigating officer recovered Ex.P.4 and examined P.W.2. P.W.2 is a resident of Meensurrity Police Station and he is having a photo studio in Chennai - Kumbakonam Main Road. On 23.3.1993, he photographed the dead body found in a public place near the temple and Ex.P.4 is the entry made by him in his photo studio book. He photographed the dead bodies from three different angles and M.O.1 series are the photographs and the negatives. "The Investigating Officer then went to the Government Hospital at Jayankondam and collected the post-mortem report of the deceased concerned in Crime No.167 of 1993 on the file of Meensurrity Police Station. The Investigating Officer examined further witnesses by recording their statements on 13.5.1994. On 14.5.1994, the Investigating Officer examined P.Ws.1,3 to 9, 16, 25 and 39 by recording their statements. Further witnesses were examined on 15.5.1994, 17.5.1994 and 18.5.1994. On 19.5.1994, the Investigating Officer gave a requisition to the Court at Jayamkondam to send the blood stained earth mixed with human hair recovered by the police officer of Meensurrity Police Station from the place where the dead body concerned in Crime No.167 of 1993 was found and the viscera to the laboratory. The Investigating Officer sent P.W.7 to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tanjore to examine him for injuries, if any sustained by him.