PANDIARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-On 24-9-2005 a complaint was given by one P. Ganesan. His brother P. Kumaraguru is a practising Advocate in Usilampatti. The said P. Kumaraguru has taken chit for the value of Rs. 5,15,000/- in the chit run by one Pon Pandi. In that amount, the said Pon pandi had paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- to p. Kumaraguru. P. Kumaraguru insisted the pon Pandi to give the balance amount of Rs. 3,75,000/ -. The Pon Pandi gave a cheque for the remaining amount. The cheque given by the Pon Pandi to the deceased P. Kumaraguru was dishonoured and therefore the deceased filed a complaint against the pon Pandi under the Negotiable Instruments act. His brother again demanded the amount from the Pon Pandi. He did not pay the amount. So the said P. Kumaraguru, brother of the complainant lodged a separate complaint in the Court of the Judicial magistrate-I at Usilampetti. Then, the case was registered against the Pon Pandi. Then his brother and the Pon Pandi have come forward to settle the dispute amicably between them. Since, the criminal case was registered against the Pon Pandi, he threatened p. Kumaraguru and his wife often. Since both of them were belonging to the same community, no complaint was given to the police against the Pon Pandi about his threatening. Further. one Thamizharasu, son of Sivaji gave a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/-on behalf of the Pon Pandi. Then the Pon pandi informed that I will give only a sum of rs. 2. 00,000 and if he did not withdraw the complaint, I will kill him.

(2.) ON 24-9-2005 at 9. 15 hours a Maruthi van bearing Registration No. T. No. 37 3488 was coming at the scene of occurrence and it dashed against P. Kumaraguru, when he was riding his motor cycle. Pon Pandi and his son Uma Shankar, Sai Prasath and one other unknown person got down from the maruthi Van. Uma Shanker son of the Pon pandi attacked P. Kumaraguru and also Sai prasath attacked him and one other unknown person also stabbed the brother of the Genesan in the chest. His brother died on the spot. The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 1508 of 2005.

(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is under the custody for more than 452 days and his name was not mentioned in the FIR and there is no corresponding injury on the body of the victim as mentioned by the prosecution. Further p. W. 1 has not identified the accused and there is no adverse evidence against him and hence he may be released on bail.