Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Natesan – Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police Veeranam Police Station Salem District
(Crime No.538 of 2003) - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No.31504 of 2014 & M.P. No.1 of 2014, Crl.O.P. No.6439 of 2015 & M.P. No.1 of 2015, Crl.O.P. No.6941 of 2016 & Crl.M.P. No.3606 of 2016, Crl.O.P. No.7356 of 2016 & Crl.M.P. No.3862 of 2016
Decided on : 03-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Sankarasubbu
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor
The duty of the accused to cooperate with the trial process and the consequences of boycotting courts were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Criminal Original Petition - Double Murder Case - Section 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC, Section 173(8), Section 311 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., the right to speedy trial, and the consequences of boycotting courts. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair trial and the duty of the accused to cooperate with the trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a double murder where the accused were stalling the trial using dilatory tactics. The accused filed multiple petitions to efface evidence, transfer the case, and recall witnesses for cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were deliberately stalling the trial and not cooperating with the trial process. The court emphasized the duty of the accused to cooperate and the right to a fair trial for all parties involved.
Issues: The main issue was the accused's refusal to cooperate with the trial process and their attempts to delay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's actions were obstructing the fair trial process and emphasized the duty of the accused to cooperate with the trial. The judgment highlighted the consequences of boycotting courts and the right to speedy trial for all parties involved.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed, and the accused's actions were deemed obstructive to the fair trial process. The court directed the Trial Court to recall witnesses for further cross-examination by the accused within a specified period.
While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, to efface the evidence recorded on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 in S.C. No.34 of 2005, Criminal Original Petition No.6439 of 2015 has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, to any other District and Sessions Court. Criminal Original Petition Nos. 6941 and 7356 of 2016 have been filed to set aside the common order in C.M.P. Nos.19 and 53 of 2016 respectively in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.
3. On 22.06.2016, this Court passed the following order:
While Criminal Original Petition No. 31504 of 2014 has been filed to direct the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, to efface the evidence recorded on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 in S.C. No.34 of 2005, Criminal Original Petition No.6439 of 2015 has been filed to withdraw and transfer the case in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem to any other District and Sessions Court. Criminal Original Petition Nos. 6941 and 7356 of 2016 have been filed to set aside the common order in C.M.P. Nos.19 and 53 of 2016 respectively in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.
3.1 This is a double murder case, the deceased being Sundarrajan and Kuppusamy.
3.2 On the complaint lodged by one Natesan alleging that he was attacked with deadly weapons by one Sundarrajan and Kuppusamy, a case in Veeranam P.S. Crime No.537 of 2003 under Section 147, 148 and 307 IPC was registered. On the complaint lodged by one Shankar that Natesan and others had caused the death of Sundarrajan and Kuppusamy, a case in Veeranam P.S. Crime No.538 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC was registered.
3.3 After completing the investigation, the police came to a definite conclusion that the case in Crime No.537 of 2003 is a false case instituted by Natesan, in order to set up a defence in the murder in Crime No.538 of 2003. The police completed the investigation in Crime No.538 of 2003 and filed a final report on 24.11.2003 against Natesan and 22 others and thereafter, further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C.. after obtaining due permission from the Magistrate. The police filed supplementary final report against Natesan and 23 others. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Salem in S.C. No.34 of 2005 and was made over to the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, for trial.
3.4 Though the case is of the year 2005, the accused were effectively stalling the trial by adopting various dilatory tactics. Hence, Ayyammal, mother of the deceased Sundarrajan filed Crl.O.P. No.759 of 2012 before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial in S.C. No.34 of 2005. This Court, by order dated 14.08.2012 in Crl.O.P. No.759 of 2012, directed the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem to conduct the trial in S.C. No.34 of 2005 and dispose of the same expeditiously. Only thereafter, the trial commenced with the examination of Ayyammal as P.W.1 on 05.03.2013.
3.5 As on 08.07.2014, the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses. Thereafter, the trial came to a grinding halt when Natesan (A1) and another filed Crl.O.P. No.31504 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to efface the entire evidence recorded on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 in S.C. No.34 of 2005 on the reasoning that the witnesses were examined, notwithstanding the adjournment sought by the counsel Mr.Haribabu on the ground that he had taken over the case only on that day.
3.6
