CANDURI JOSEPH THANGARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 282 of 1964 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-Magistrate, Nellore. He has filed this petition under sections 435, 439 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 282 of 1964.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows : In Sessions Case No. 27 of 1964, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, one Kadiveti Venkatarama Reddi alias Ramireddi stood charged of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Kameswaramma. In that case, the present accused was examined as P. W. 1. Soon after the occurrence, he had prepared a statement signed by himself relating to the occurrence and presented it to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Alur. That statement was not marked in evidence in the Sessions Court as it was found by the learned Sessions Judge to come under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, because even before Joseph Thangaraj gave that statement to the Police, the latter had received intimation from the Medical Officer and , registered it as F.I.R. and commenced investigation. It appears that in that statement, he had mentioned that he had seen the accused coming out of the room in which the deceased was lying with injuries. When Thangaraj was examined as P.W. 1 in the Sessions Court, he denied this particular fact though he admitted the truth of his earlier statement of all the other facts which were innocuous so far as the accused in the Sessions case was concerned. Accordingly, on the basis of the earlier statement which he had presented to the Police as well as similar statements which had been recorded from him by the Sub-Inspector as well as the Circle Inspector Thangaraj was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Ultimately, the prosecution in that case failed to make out a case against the accused Venkatarama Reddi and also to prove the particular fact that the accused was found coming out of the room where the deceased was lying injured. The result was that the learned Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on 22nd August, 1964 acquitting Venkatarama Reddi. In that judgment, he observed as follows :

(3.) Thangaraj filed a statement that he had made the earlier statements before the Police due to pressure by the Police. The learned Sessions Judge, ultimately filed a complaint under section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for an offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code. The complaint is substantially to the same effect as what I have extracted above from the judgment but giving the extract of the report which Thangaraj had given to the Police signed by him. The question is whether the proceedings should be quashed.