T V SARMA Vs. R MEERIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against an order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1978 holding that there are no grounds for framing charges against A-3, A-5 and A-7 to A-14 and directing that charges be framed only against A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-6 for the two offences namely (1) under Section 120-B read with Section 201 I. P. C. and (2) under Section 120-B read with Section 500 I.P.C.

(2.) petitioner is a leading criminal lawyer of this court. His son, Dr. Krishna Rao a Medical Officer in the Osmania General Hospital was married on 2/01/1975 to Kamala Devi, daughter of Koteswara Rao and the younger sister of A-1. The marriage was celebrated in the village Swarna, Prakasam District in the house of the brides parents. After the marriage, the couple left for Hyderabad on 3-1-1975. On the way at Narsaraopet, Kamaladevi had vomitings and it was found that she was pregnant. They reached Hyderabad on the morning of 4-1-1975 and they again left for Swarna on 5-1-1975 as the consummation ceremony was fixed that night. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr. Krishnarao took his father in law to task for having passed on a pregnant lady as a virgin and getting her married to him His further case is that A-2, an advocate of Chirala, A-1 the brother of the bride and her father entered into a conspiracy to kill Dr. Krishna Rao by administering poison, as the fact of pregnancy before marriage became known to him. They accordingly murdered him by administering poison on the night of 5-1-1975 and the dead body was thrown in the canal. The dead body was found in the canal on the morning of 6-1-1975. As the petitioner suspected that A-1 and A-2 and brides father with the connivance of A-3 Circle Inspector of Police, Chirala and A-4, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Inkelly within whose jurisdiction Swarna village is situate, were attempting to cremate the body, he alerted the higher police officials immediately. The body was therefore brought to Chirloa for post mortem examination which was conducted by the Medical Officer of Chirala on the morning of 7-1-1975. It disclosed that the death was not due to drowning. The police registered the case as Crl. No. 2/75 at the Police Station, Inkellu. The petitioner requested them to register a case under Section 302 and 201 I. P. C. read with Section 154, Cr. P. C. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination gave a requisition to the Magistrate, Chirala for sending the viscera for chemical examination by A-9 for detecting poison, if any. The investigation was handed over to A-5, Inspector of Police, C. B., C. I. D. A-7 was the Superintendent of Police, Ongole. According to the petitioner on 14-1-1975 A-1 to A-9 met at Annapurna Hotel at Hyderabad and entered into a conspiracy for suppressing the evidence of murder of Dr. Krishna Rao and to screen the offenders from legal punishment. In pursuance of the conspiracy a report dated 14-1-1975 signed by A-5 was submitted to A-8 suppressing the evidence of murder. The viscera was sent to A-9 on 16-1-1975 signed by A-5 was submitted to A-8 suppressing the evidence of murder. The viscera was sent to A-9 on 16-1-1975 and A-9 gave his opinion on 10-2-1975 in pursuance of the conspiracy to the effect that ethylalcohol was found in the liver and viscera. It is also stated that the entire viscera was consumed in the test. The report was contrary to the opinion of the doctor who conducted autopsy and who had said that there was no trace of poison. The report also was the outcome of the conspiracy entered into between A-1 to A-9 spiracy entered into between A-1 to A-9 for suppressing the evidence of murder. A-5 also brought a report into existence that Dr. Krishnarao was important and that his death might be due to suicide. The allegation that the deceased was impotent was defamatory. With these allegations the petitioner filed a case before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, and two witnesses, the Magistrate took congnizance of the offence alleged against the accused and registered the case as P. R. C. 7/76 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 120-B read with Sec. 201 and 120-B read the Section 500 I. P. C. That case was later on transferred to the court of the V. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and numbered as P. R. C. 3/78 on his file. Meanwhile the Crime Branch filed P. R. C. 9/75 before the II class Magstrate, Chirala, for offences punishable under Secs. 302, 201, 120-B and 218 I. P. C. against Kamaladevi, her father and others. P. R. C. 9/75 was committed to Sessions and registered as S. C. 44/75 by the District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The petitioner not being satisfied with the manner in which the police were conducting the case, filed a private complaint against 24 persons and this was registered as P. R. C. 1/75 in the court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 120-B read with Section 302 and Section 201 and 120-B read with Sections 211, 218 and Section 466 I. P. C. This case was committed to Sessions and registered as S. C. No. 8/76 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Ongole. The two Sessions cases are pending in the Sessions Court.

(3.) A-7 to A-9 in P. R. C. 7/76 (later on numbered as P. R. C. 3/78) filed Crl. M. Ps. To quash the proceedings in P. R. C. 7/76. On 16-2-1977 this court (Sheth, J.) quashed the charges against A-7 to A-9 under Section 120-B read with Section 500 I. P. C. on the ground that they could not be prosecuted for these offences without prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197, Cr. P. C. Sheth, J. however directed that the Magistrate should proceed against A-7 to A-9 in so far as charge under Section 120-B alone was concerned as that did not require sanction under Section 197, Cr. P. C. He further observed that while considering that charge it would be open to the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, if the case is committed, to take all the relevant facts into account and the evidence relating to offence under Sections 500 and 201 I. P. C. A-1 to A-3 and A-5 Also filed petitions for quashing the order taking cognizance of the offences in P. R. C. 7/76. On behalf of A-5 it was not only contended that sanction was necessary under Section 197, Cr. P. C. but the prosecution was barred by limitation in view of Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act. A-1 urged only the contention based on Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act. A-1 and A-2 submitted that there was no sufficient material for taking cognizance of the offence. By its order dated 18-2-1977 Sheth, J. held that sanction was necessary for prosecution of A-5 under Section 120 -B read with Section 201, Section 120-B read with Section 500 I. P. C. and also that the proceedings were barred by limitation against A-3 and A-5 under Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act as the prosecution was instituted on 29-6-1976 for the offences said to have been committed on 14-1-1975. The petitions filed by A1 and A-2 were dismissed. The petitioner herein filed Crl. M. P. 635 and 637 of 1977 before a Division Bench consisting of Madhava Rao and Madhusudan Rao, JJ. Challenging the order of the Single Judge dated 18-21977 in so far as it related to A-3 and A-5 and also against the order of the single Judge dated 16-2-1977 relating to A-7 to A-9. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 20-4-1977 dismissed the Crl M. Ps. In the result, the position was that according to the orders of Sheth, J., the prosecution against A-3, A-5 was barred by limitation and A-7 to A-9 could be proceeded against only for the offence under Section 120-B I. P. C. simpliciter and not for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 201, 120-B read with Section 500 I. P. C.