IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – Court has to consider the case within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellants have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 20th December 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, had passed an order dated 9th January 2009 granting discharge to the appellants in the exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). One Nanjundan, the husband of the deceased Siddammal, challenged the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by filing a revision application. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has allowed the revision application and has remanded the case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for holding trial. The said Nanjundan died during the pendency of revision application. The respondent is his son.

2. We must advert to a few factual aspects. The respondent’s father Nanjundan had lodged a First Information Report bearing Cr. No. 107 of 2004 (the FIR) alleging the commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The FIR was based on the incident of 9th October 2004. In the complaint, based on which the FIR was registered, it was alleged that the first appellant had filed a suit against the respondent, praying for carrying out the measurement of the property claimed by the appellants and removing encroachment. On the date of the incident, around 11 am, the appellants and one Gopal assembled in front of the respondent’s house, along with village munsif and a surveyor. They informed the respondent’s father that Gopal had purchased the said property from the first appellant, and they wanted to measure the property. The respondent’s mother (the deceased) tried to prevent them from entering to carry out a survey. The allegation is that at that time, the first appellant exhorted the second appellant to kill the deceased. Thereupon, the second appellant picked up a stick lying at the site and assaulted her on the chest. After that, the third and first appellant kicked the deceased on her chest and stomach. The respondent’s mother was declared dead in the hospital where she was taken.

3. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report recording that the death of the deceased was due to natural cause and due to prior enmity, the respondent falsely implicated the appellants. The final report was accordingly, filed on 22nd December 2004. Instead of filing a protest petition, the respondent’s father filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. containing the same averments made in his complaint based on which the FIR was registered. The Judicial Magistrate recorded evidence of witnesses, including a doctor who performed a post-mortem. The doctor deposed that the death was natural.

4. As stated earlier, the appellants invoked Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, which was allowed by order dated 9th January, 2009.

SUBMISSIONS

5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the post-mortem certificate dated 10th October 2004 records that there were no ante-mortem injuries anywhere on the body of the deceased. Moreover, it records that the final opinion was reserved pending the chemical examiner’s and histo-pathological reports. He submitted that both the reports were not placed on record, and there is no final opinion regarding the cause of death. He invited our attention to the deposition of Dr. R. Vallinayagam, who conducted a postmortem on the body of the deceased. He pointed out that apart from stating that there were no ante-mortem injuries, the doctor opined that there was a tear in the heart caused due to heart disease. The doctor stated that the death was a natural one. He submitted that the case made out by the respondent’s father was false.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgmen