SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Sutherson – Appellant
versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A.(MD).No.494 of 2023
Decided on 11.10.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. N. Anandhapadmanabhan, Senior Counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Robinson for R2

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Even if accused is confined in jail for a long period, same is not a ground to grant relief of bail to accused.
(2) Rights of victims and witnesses – To make arrangements of protection of victims, their dependants and witnesses against any kind of intimation or coercion or inducement or violence or threat of violence is absolutely necessary.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 and 109 – Bail application – Murder of Advocate – Fifteen persons are arrayed as accused – Among them, most of the persons have number of previous cases – Among previous cases, number of cases are grave in nature – Appellant’s relationship with accused itself is a strong circumstance to decline bail – Appellants and other accused eliminated one of witnesses in earlier case – There is continuous life threat to de facto complainant also – Even though appellant is confined in jail for a long period, in peculiar circumstances of this case, same is not a ground to grant relief of bail to appellant – Court not inclined to grant bail merely because final report is filed when there is reasonable apprehension of potential threat to witnesses – Criminal Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17)

(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 10 and 15-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 327 – Rights of victims and witnesses – To make arrangements of protection of victims, their dependants and witnesses against any kind of intimation or coercion or inducement or violence or threat of violence is absolutely necessary – It is duty of Special Court to complete trial by giving complete protection to secure ends of justice and also Government to specify an appropriate scheme to provide protection programme to give protection to victims or their dependants and witnesses from intimidation and harassment – A large percentage of acquittals in criminal cases is due to witnesses turning hostile and giving false testimonies, mostly due to lack of protection for them and their families, especially in case of women and children – Extraordinary circumstances demands extraordinary remedy – Power of this Court is not fettered and it can be used in extraordinary situation – Directions issued to make proper arrangements for conduct of trial in prison. (Paras 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed. Directions issued.

JUDGMENT

Accused No.15 in Crime No.48 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police is the appellant herein. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant and other accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 and 109 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.528 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order, dated 22.06.2023.

2. The case of the prosecution.

According to the prosecution, the deceased is a practising advocate in Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli Bar Association. The defacto complainant in the above crime number has two brothers. One of his brother’s name is P.K.Shivakumar and another brother’s name is P.K.Muthukumar. The said P.K.Shivakumar was murdered by a mob in front of the Court campus in the presence of the deceased P.K.Muthukumar and the defacto complainant. Hence, the Thoothukudi South police station registered a case in Crime No. 533 of 2019. In the said case, one of the accused is Rajesh. The said Rajesh is the friend of the present appellant. According to the prosecution, the present appellant is a B.Tech Graduate and got Gold medal from Anna University. Earlier, he was working in a software company at Chennai. Thereafter, he came to his native place to do agricultural activities. After his arrival to Thoothukudi, he developed the relationship with the said Rajesh. The deceased advocate P.K.Muthukumar and the defacto complainant herein were continuously taking steps to intervene in the bail applications filed by all the accused in the murder case of his brother P.K.Shivakumar. The same infuriated and provoked the accused in Crime No.533 of 2019 to hatch a plan to eliminate the said P.K.Muthukumar as he was hurdle to them for getting bail. Therefore, the accused in the jail conspired with this appellant and other accused and murdered the said P.K.Muthukumar, Advocate on 22.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m, near P.K.Gold Loan Shop at Thoothukudi Soreeshpuram Madhapur Road. Hence, the complaint was given before the SIPCOT Police Station, namely, the respondent police. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 and 109 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation officer arrested the accused and filed the final report against 15 accused and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.25 of 2023. The appellant filed the bail application and the defacto complainant also appeared and submitted his detailed counter. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also filed a detailed counter. The learned trial Judge, after considering all the materials and submissions, dismissed the bail petition vide the impugned order dated 22.06.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

3.1. The appellant is an B.Tech Graduate and Gold medalist in Anna University. One of the brother of the defacto complainant, P.K. Shivakumar was murdered on 21.08.2019 at 10.00 a.m. in the eastern side to the Court post office. In the said case, one Rajesh is arrayed as one of the accused. He is the friend of the present appellant. In the said case, number of times, the bail petitions filed by Rajesh and other accused were dismissed upon considering the objection raised by the defacto complainant and his brother P.K.Muthukumar. Therefore, the accused made a conspiracy and murdered the said P.K.Muthukumar on 22.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m, in Thoothukudi Bazaar near P.K.Gold Loan Shop. Therefore, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.48 of 2023 for the alleged offence as stated above. The Investigating agency arrested number of accused in this case and the arrested accused made confession stating that the appellant made arrangement to release his friend Rajesh on bail by providing the financial suppo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top