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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Palanivelu, J.
State rep. by Inspector of Police, “Q” Branch C.I.D., Kanchipuram
Versus
Gopal and Others
Crl. A. No. 226 of 2006
Decided on : 19 March 2012

ADVOCATES APPEARED:
C. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for Appellant
R. Vijayakumar, for Respondents

Headnote:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 178 and 197 - Challenge to acquittal- Held, Since respondents/accused, are police officials, it is incumbent upon the Investigation Officer to place requisition before their superior officers for passing sanction to prosecute them. But the sanction has not been obtained by the investigation officer. Sanction is sine qua non for prosecuting the public servants like the respondents - There is no evidence to infer that the accused persons have acted negligently so as to enable the prisoners to escape from the clutches of law and that they have not violated any procedure as laid down in the Prisoner’s Manual and also the procedure to be followed by them - It is not the correct law by directing that the objection on the question of sanction can be raised at the stage of framing of charge and not at any prior point of time - 2001 SCC (Crl) 18, followed - Want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is a prohibition against institution of the proceedings and the applicability as to the section must be judged at the earliest stage of proceedings - (1990) Supp. SCC 41, relied on - Acquittal confirmed.

JUDGMENT

1. Complainant is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 9.8.2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Chegalpet made in C.C. No. 272 of 1997 acquitting the appellants for the offence under Sections 221 and 223 IPC.

2. The following is the brief account of the prosecution case sans unnecessary details :-

2.1 On 29.4.1993, at about 19.00 hrs., under the orders of the superiors, the first accused who is the Sub-Inspector of Police in Armed Reserve alongwith other accused and the deceased Mohan who was the head constable with the drivers of the vehicle took four Tada accused by name Victor, Kruban, Ravi and Chandran from Central Jail, Chennai to Pattukottai Judicial Magistrate Court to produce them on 30.4.1993. While the police van was coming along GST Road, at Mamandur, on the west side of the road, the vehicle was stopped near a hotel by name Bismillah Hotel. The inmates of the van alighted from the vehicle had their night food in the hotel and while they were returning back to the van at about 22.50 hrs., a white colour Ambasador car appeared in the scene which came to a halt and some persons came out from the car, shot at the inmates of the police van and the first accused shot with his revolver twice and the head constable 7164 also shot two rounds.

2.2 In the melee, three prisoners by name Kruban, Ravi and Chandran were taken in the Ambassador car which fled away. First accused caught hold of Victor, the another prisoner from escaping. In the incident, Mohan, Police constable No. 12060 sustained bullet injury on the stomach and he died on the spot. The police driver by name Chakravarthy sustained bullet injuries on his left knee and left hand. A bomb was also found in the scene of crime. The deceased and the injured were admitted to Government Hospital, Chengalpet. Narrating the above said incidents, the first accused lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Gunasekaran in Maduranthagam Police Station. P.W.1, Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation on getting the FIR lodged by the said Gunasekaran and proceeded to the scene of crime. The case was registered in Crime No. 360 of 1993. P.W.1 called for finger print expert and lens men and also bomb disposal squad.

2.3 On the next day, i.e. on 30.4.1993, at about 5.30 a.m., he prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch. He went to the Government Hospital, Chengalpet and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mohan. He also seized unexploded bomb in the scene of crime. He further seized revolver and cartridges from the first accused. He laid complaint, Exhibit P-2 with the ‘Q‘ Brach, CID, Kanchipuram for taking action against the police officials who came as escort for the prisoners. Exhibits P-2/P-25, FIR was lodged on the said complaint.

P.W.53, Inspector of Policea ‘Q‘ Branch CID got the FIR and took up the case for investigation. He arrested the accused and kept them in the Chengalpet town police station. On 1.5.1993, he sent them for judicial custody. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2.5.1993, at about 4.00 p.m., he proceeded to the scene of crime, seized one brandy bottle and two glass tumblers under cover of mahazar Exhibit P-9, in the presence of P.Ws.19, 20 and 27. He sent the case properties under Form 95, Exhibit P-28 to the Court. He gave requisition to the Court to send M.Os1 and 2 for forensic lab analysis.

2.4 P.W.35, the doctor attached to Chengalpet Medical College Hospital examined and treated Chakravarthy, the 5th accused and gave Exhibit P-17, accident register. He found fractures in the right thigh bone and also in the ulna bone on the left forearm. P.W.36, also examined the 5th accused and found three injuries and issued Exhibit P-18, accident register. P.W.37, doctor examined the 5th accused and gave Exhibit P-19 stating about the fractures sustained by him. P.W.38, doctor further examined the 5th


























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