B. Rajendran, J.

1. The prosecution has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri in C.M.P. No. 164 of 2015 dismissing the application filed by them under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure to alter the charges levelled against the respondents/accused by including Section 302 of IPC as an additional charge.

2. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant in this case is the wife of victim Velu, who has given a complaint complaining that on 25.09.2006, her husband was forcibly taken by the accused persons towards the sea with an intention to murder him. It is the specific case of the defacto complainant that the 7th respondent herein had given command to his men to bring her husband and on the basis of such command, the accused 1 to 6 have forcibly taken her husband towards the sea. It is also the specific complaint of the defacto complainant that after that incident, the where about of his husband was not known or he was not seen alive by any one from that date. On the basis of such complaint given by the defacto complainant, the case in Crime No. 988 of 2011 came to be registered under the caption "man missing" on 26.07.2011. After investigation, it came to light that A2 to A5, based on the instigation of A1, A6 and A7 have kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant. Therefore, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections147, 323, 364, 506(i) read with 149 IPC against the accused/respondents herein and it was taken on file in S.C. No. 229 of 2014 on 02.06.2014.

3. According to the prosecution, it came to light that the deceased was forcibly kidnapped and he might have been murdered by the respondent/accused. The prosecution arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, pending trial, the prosecution has filed the petition in CMP No. 164 of 2015 under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to include the offence under Section 302 of IPC also against the accused in S.C. No. 229 of 2014. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 23.06.2015 against which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner would contend that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the respondents 1 to 6 at the instance of the respondent No. 7. According to the prosecution, the victim was forcibly taken from his house by the respondents 1 to 6 at the instance of the 7th respondent as the victim often quarrelled regarding non-disbursement of the Tsunami relief fund. According to the prosecution, the victim specifically raised allegations against the 7th respondent for non-disbursement of Tsunami relief fund and because of such allegations raised by the victim, the 7th respondent instigated his men to do away with his life. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 6 have kidnapped the victim forcibly from his house and taken him towards the sea. Thereafter, the victim was not heard or seen alive by any one. The whereabouts of the victim was not known for seven years and therefore, he is presumed to be murdered by the accused. In the above facts, the prosecution thought it fit that invocation of Section 364 of IPC alone is not enough and the accused have also to be tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution also gained strength over the statement of witnesses given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. regarding the manner in which the victim was forcibly taken away from his house with an intention to murder him. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the Court below dismissed the application filed by them mainly on the ground that the corpus delicti of the victim has not been recovered or produced or any evidence has been shown that the victim was murdered by the respondents o