STATE Vs. ANBAZHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.2000 in S.C.No.214 of 2000 and on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.11.2000 in S.C.No.214 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.) This appeal is by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent herein by the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore in S.C.No.214 of 2000. The revision is by P.W.1 in that sessions case. The respondent in that sessions case was tried under Section 201 I.P.C. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted. As noted earlier, that judgment of acquittal is challenged before this court in the appeal filed by the State and in the revision filed by P.W.1. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondent. We heard Mr.M.Venkataraman for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.V.Sridharan again for the respondent.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the prosecution case is that a young girl, aged about 16 years and who is the daughter of P.W.1, left the house on the evening of 22.12.1995 to attend her night shift work in Sundaram Mills situated at Chinnavedampatti Village within the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions; she did not return on the next day after her duty; this resulted in a hue and cry in the house of P.W.1; people gathered and ultimately the body was found dead in a dry well on the evening of 23.12.1995. THEreafter Law was set on motion by a complaint coming to be registered on the file of the police station concerned in Crime No.81 of 1995 - the crime was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being 'suspicious death". Investigation commenced on the registration of the crime and the respondent herein, who was the then Inspector of Police - investigating officer, was incharge of the investigation from 23.12.1995 till 23.3.1996. THE respondent though knew fully well, who the real offenders are, yet, collected materials to bring home the prosecution case against only one person by name Sundaram alias Sundarasamy and as a result of those materials collected, a final report came to be filed on 28.8.1996 by the officer then incharge of the police station against Sundaram alias Sundarasamy under Sections 376, 302 and 201 I.P.C., in the very same Court of Sessions, which was taken on file as S.C.No.110 of 1998 and therefore with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, he gave information regarding that offence (by collecting materials pointing out the guilt of another person) which he knows or believes to be false. THE prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 25 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.52 and M.Os.1 to 23. THE defence did not let in any oral evidence. But however the defence marked Exs.D.1 to D.7. Since the charge against the accused is only under Section 201 I.P.C. - the sum and substance of which we have already given earlier, we are of the opinion that we need not give the entire evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the offence under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C., since it would be suffice to advert to the relevant material namely, whether during the course of investigation the respondent knew, who the real offenders are and yet did he proceed to collect materials with a view to screen them and project a scapegoat in court for the purpose of trial" To complete the narration of facts, we would like to state that when S.C.No.110 of 1998 was taken up for recording evidence on 11.11.1998 and 12.11.1998 the witnesses examined therein turned hostile. P.W.25 in the present case was the Station House Officer when the trial commenced in the earlier sessions case. That trial was proceeded against only one accused namely, Sundaram alias Sundarasamy. On the witnesses turning hostile in that sessions case, P.W.25 moved the Court of Sessions at that time for permission to re-investigate and accordingly such permission was granted. On such permission to re-investigate granted, S.C.No.110 of 1998 was brought to an abrupt end without allowing it to reach its logical end. After thorough re-investigation, P.W.25 filed a final report in Court in respect of the same occurrence against six accused, in which, the present respondent was A.6. That sessions case was taken on file as S.C.No.96 of 2000. However on an application taken out by A.6 in that sessions case that there is misjoinder of parties, the then learned Sessions Judge passed a detailed order on merits splitting up the case against A.6 in that sessions case and trial in S.C.No.96 of 2000 went on only against the remaining five accused. THE split up case against A.6 in that sessions case was taken on file as S.C.No.214 of 2000, out of which the present appeal and the revision had arisen. S.C.No.96 of 2000 also ended in acquittal and the State and the private party came before this court in C.A.Nos.152 of 2001 and Crl.R.C.No.239 of 2001. By separate judgment we have disposed of both the above proceedings reversing the judgment of acquittal.

(3.) P.W.16 is the finger print expert working in the finger print bureau in Coimbatore. We extract hereunder her evidence:-