KITCHAPPAN ALIAS SINIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history. Apart from the appellant, two persons were allegedly concerned in this gruesome murder, of two persons, viz. Subbammal and Gurusamy Naicker, who will be henceforth referred to as D-1 and D-2. Those two persons are Subburaj (since deceased as it is evidence that he had committed suicide on 30.8.1982) and Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu. Of these two persons, Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu was charged only for conspiracy, while Subburaj had allegedly cut both the deceased with an aruval in the company of the appellant. Africa Naidu alias Ramasamy Naidu was tried alone, for conspiracy in S.C. No.230 of 1986 on the file of the same trial Judge, since at that point of time the case against the appellant had to be split up, since he was absconding. It appears in evidence that on conclusion of trial in S.C. No.230 of 1986, Africa Naidu was acquitted, since there was no worthwhile evidence to establish the charge of conspiracy.

(2.) THERE was one another hurdle as well. Before the final report could be laid in this prosecution on 19.12.1985, by P.W.20 Jamdiction, Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Kamarajar District. P.W.18 Subbiah, who had initially taken up investigation in the impugned crime on 29.8.1982, had chosen to refer the crime as mistake of fact even on 31.8.1982 as against the appellant, while closing the case against Subburaj, on account, that due to his having committed suicide, the charge against his stood abated. It is rather intriguing as to how within two days P.W.18 Subbiah was able to refer the case against the appellant as mistake of fact in spite of two eye witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1 and 2 having clearly mentioned during his investigation that it was the appellant and Subburaj, who had attacked both the deceased mercilessly with aruvals leading to their deaths. The statement of D-2 before his death (Ex.P-13) and the first information report also contained the said clear detail, which was certainly within the awareness of P.W.18. In Ex.P-16, which is the referred report, P.W.18 has given a clean chit to the appellant on the ground that he was at Madurai at the relevant time and not at Narayanapuram, the scene of occurrence. He has stated in his report that the alibi witnesses had stated that the appellant was at Kasiram Lodge, Madurai, and it was verified and was found to be correct. None of the statements of those alibi witnesses, appear to have been forwarded to the Magistrate, along with the referred report.

(3.) IT did shock us, when Mr.R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the basis of instructions submitted that P.W.18, who faced a departmental enquiry, on the foundation of this referred chargesheet, was exonerated and promoted as well. Though, unfortunately for him, due to certain other investigation lapses, similar to this, he is now under suspension. Officers like P.W.18, would dent the reputation of the Police Force as a whole, and after enquiry, which shall be conducted in all seriousness, if the charge is established, people like him, will have to be sent out from service, for that alone will ensure the confidence of the public in the police investigation system. At the same time, we are bound to place on record, our appreciation for P.W.6 Ranold Princely, the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Sattur, who was not prepared to accept the referred chargesheet and promptly took steps to have further investigation conducted, by communicating to the concerned Superintendent of Police. We were told, that this Magistrate is now dead. Though posthumous, our appreciation shall be placed on record.