Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
Prasanna @ Prasanna Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
State represented by Station House Officer – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 390 of 2015
Decided On : 09-06-2015
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294 (b), 353, 332 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 227, 228 – Correctness of the order – Case of the prosecution is that at about 10.30 p.m. on 30.04.2014 when Mr. Alavandar, SGPC 1917 attached to the respondent police station along with PC F15 Ramadass were performing night beat near the Asian Guest House in Subbiah Salai, Puducherry, one Senthil approached them and informed SGPC 1917 Alavandar that a car from beach road is approaching speedily and requested him to stop the vehicle to cause an enquiry. – Accordingly, SGPC 1917 Alavandar stopped the vehicle driven by the petitioner and enquired him. – It is stated that SGPC 1917 Alavandar questioned the petitioner as to why the car is being driven speedily. – Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner alleged to have prevented the said SGPC 1917 Alavandar from discharging his official duties by scolding SGPC 1917 Alavandar for having questioned him. – The petitioner also alleged to have scolded Senthil in a filthy language. – It is also alleged that the petitioner punched SGPC 1917 Alavandar in his chest and ran away. – However, he fell down when he was hit by a stone. – Immediately, the petitioner was apprehended by SGPC 1917 Alavandar along with Senthil and taken him to the respondent police station at about 00.15 hours on 01.05.2014. – On reaching the police station, a special report was prepared by SGPC 1917 and it was submitted it to the Head Constable 1334. – On the basis of such special report, the case in Crime No. 74 of 2014 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 353, 332 IPC. – Held, It was categorically held that the Judge, while framing the charge under Section 227 is having power to fix and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. – It was further held that whether while considering the question of framing the charge. – If it is found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution gave rise to suspicion, then the Court is fully justified to discharge the accused in exercise of its power under Section 227 or 228 of Cr. P.C – In the present case, from the evidence made available on record, it is seen that there are lot of inconsistencies and contradictions in the case projected by the prosecution. – First of all, for making a prima facie case under Section 294 (b), the prosecution has not even indicated the alleged words uttered by the petitioner. – Further, the fact that SGPC 1917 Alavandar had obtained a certificate from the medical officer, even though he did not suffer any injury, to the effect that such certificate is issued only for judicial purpose, only give rise to suspicion in the case projected by the prosecution. – Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner need not be subjected to the ordeal of trial especially when the prosecution has not made available prima facie material evidence to prove his guilt. – In such circumstances, this Court can come to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for discharge and the order passed by the trial court has to be set aside. – Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court is set aside. – Criminal Revision Case Allowed
1. The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision case questioning the correctness of the order dated 05.03.2014 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dismissing his petition for discharge from the criminal prosecution.
2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 10.30 p.m. on 30.04.2014 when Mr. Alavandar, SGPC 1917 attached to the respondent police station along with PC F15 Ramadass were performing night beat near the Asian Guest House in Subbiah Salai, Puducherry, one Senthil approached them and informed SGPC 1917 Alavandar that a car from beach road is approaching speedily and requested him to stop the vehicle to cause an enquiry. Accordingly, SGPC 1917 Alavandar stopped the vehicle driven by the petitioner and enquired him. It is stated that SGPC 1917 Alavandar questioned the petitioner as to why the car is being driven speedily. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner alleged to have prevented the said SGPC 1917 Alavandar from discharging his official duties by scolding SGPC 1917 Alavandar for having questioned him. The petitioner also alleged to have scolded Senthil in a filthy language. It is also alleged that the petitioner punched SGPC 1917 Alavandar in his chest and ran away. However, he fell down when he was hit by a stone. Immediately, the petitioner was apprehended by SGPC 1917 Alavandar along with Senthil and taken him to the respondent police station at about 00.15 hours on 01.05.2014. On reaching the police station, a special report was prepared by SGPC 1917 and it was submitted it to the Head Constable 1334. On the basis of such special report, the case in Crime No. 74 of 2014 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 353, 332 IPC.
3. After enquiry, a final report was filed by the investigation officer and it was taken on file as C.C. No. 38 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. Pending the calander case, the petitioner has filed Crl. M.P. No. 1874 of 2014 in C.C. No. 38 of 2014 for discharge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 05.02.2014 dismissed the petition for discharge by holding that the petitioner has to face the trial to examine whether the offences alleged against him are made out or not. It is against this order dismissing the petition for discharge, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner.
4. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the statement of Sendhil would indicate that he has not stated from where he spotted the car said to have been driven by the petitioner speedily or how he reached the place where the police constables were performing the night patrol duty. It is also not known as to why the respondent did not frame any charge against the petitioner for the alleged rash and negligent driving of the car. Even though the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is included in the first information report, nothing is mentioned as to what were the words uttered by the petitioner which would attract the offence under Section 294 (b). The trial court also, came to the conclusion that the words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner has not been indicated either in the special report or first information report, however, the trial court erroneously held that it has to be considered and examined only at the time of trial in the criminal case.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further contend that even though it is alleged that the petitioner, after assaulting the Police Constable ran and fell down, he was not taken to the Medical Officer to show the nature and extent of injuries suffered by him. Rather, SGPC 1917 Alavandar, who did not receive any injury, appeared before the Medical Officer and obtained a certificate. Even in the medical certificate, it was stated that SGPC 1917 Alavandar did not suffer any bodily injury but the medical officer had issue
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
