(1.) THIS is a petition under S.482, Crl. P.C., by the four petitioners who are accused 1 to 4 in P.R.C. No. 14 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruvadanai. All the four petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town in Crime No. 115 of 1984 on the file of the Devakottai Taluk Police Station, for offences under Ss.302 and 201 read with S.34, I.P.C. They had been committed to take their trial for the said offences before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. At that stage, they have come forward with this petition to quash the committal.
(2.) PETITIONERS 3 and 4 are sisters and their husbands who are said to be brothers are stated to be employed in Malaysia and petitioners 1 and 2 are alleged to be doing agricultural work in the lands belonging to the petitioners 3 and 4. The deceased in this case, one Dhanam, young girl of about 18 years, unmarried, was the daughter of one Subramaniam, step-brother of the husbands of petitioners 3 and 4. She was working in the house of petitioners 3 and 4, and according to the prosecution, she became aware of the immoral activities of petitioners 3 and 4 and since the husband of the third petitioner had come home during the month of January 1984, petitioners 3 and 4 apprehended that she might divulge their activities to the husband of the third petitioner and so they made up their mind to do away with the said Dhanam.
(3.) THE petitioners have come forward with several contentions stating that the version put forward by the three witnesses shown as P.Ws.l to 3 is highly unbelievable and unnatural and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are all from a different village known as Periakarai and not from Panangattanvayal village and even in the first information report shown to have been given by Srinivasan, there is no mention about the names of the villages from the three villages who had convened a meeting on 29,6.1984 for enquiring into the real cause of death of deceased Dhanam. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a mystery as to how those so-called elders happened to convene a meeting for the said purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no mention whatsoever in the charge-sheet as to who were the persons who had convened the meeting and in the charge-sheet, no witness has been cited as such to speak about the convening of such meeting and about P.W.1 and others coming forward at a late stage to speak the truth, if at all it had been convened in such manner.