SUNDARARAJAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the dismissal of discharge petition filed by A13 to A16 in M.P.No.51 of 2007 in S.C.No.108 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.

(2.) THE first petitioner is the Sub Inspector of Police and petitioners 2 to 4 are the police constables in Armed Reserve. A1 to A6 in Sessions Case No.108 of 2007 allegedly committed murder of Ravindranathan @ Ravi on 2.6.2004 at 6.00 pm in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by them. THE allegation as against the petitioners herein ranked as A13 to A16 is that when they escorted A8 Ravi alias Steel Ravi to the court on 20.5.2004 at 4.30 pm and also at 6.20 pm, the aforesaid criminal conspiracy was hatched by the aforesaid accused with A4 Balan, A9 Madeswaran and A10 Tajudeen to murder Ravindranathan @ Ravi in their very presence. But, the petitioners, who had knowledge about the said criminal conspiracy failed to inform the police authorities and thereby they committed an offence under section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE Trial Court has observed that the charge sheet laid by the Inspector of Police who recorded the statement can be considered as a complaint for the purpose of section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THErefore, there is no lacuna on the part of the State in prosecuting the petitioners based on the charge sheet which was tantamount to complaint for the scope of section 195(1)(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THE Trial Court has also held that the offence has been allegedly committed by the petitioners only during the course of the very same transaction and therefore, as per section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, joint trial is permissible. So saying, the Trial Court dismissed the application seeking discharge.