VILLI THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, made in Crl.M.P. No. 185 of 1996 in S.C.No 3 of 1996, dated 24-1-1997.

(2.) The twelve petitioners in the above revision petition alongwith 18 others, stood charged in Crime No. 145 of 1991 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149, IPC. On behalf of the abovementioned petitioners a petition under Section 227, Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No. 185 of 1996 was filed for discharge mainly on the ground that there was no incriminating material against any one of them as would appear from the records of the case as furnished to them. It was pointed out by the petitioners that in the first information report given against them, none of their names has been mentioned. It appears that after the petition was filed, the Public Prosecutor had filed Crl.M.P.No. 940 of 1996 praying for inclusion of one Muniasamy as a. prosecution witness and to include his statement under Section 161 (3), Cr.P.C. as part of the case records wherein all the petitioners were alleged to have been implicated as abetting the offence of murder and assault. It was further pleaded by the prosecution that the non- inclusion of Muniasamy in the list of prosecution witnesses was a mere omission. It is true that the statement obtained by Muniasamy was not included in the list. The document not having been furnished to the accused was only due to mistake. On the said claims by the prosecution the trial Court appears to have ordered inclusion as prayed for, by order dated 3-12-1996. Subsequently, the petition filed by the petitioners was taken up for hearing and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the evidence of Muniasamy furnished prima facie basis to prosecute the petitioners and consequently the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It is as against the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had also framed charges against all the 27 accused persons. The petitioners herein are accused 16 to 27 in the said Sessions Case. The facts regarding what had happened before the lower Court are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the names of these petitioners are not mentioned in the First Information Report and that the implication of these petitioners as accused is solely on the basis of the statement of Muniasamy who was not included in the original list of witnesses nor his statement furnished along with the documents to the accused. Muniasamy has been included in the list of witnesses and his statement added subsequently only after five years and that too after the present petition for discharge was filed by the petitioners.