Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 184

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Deivendiran & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi & Another - Respondent
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos. 2001 & 2008 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos. 1000, 1001, 1011 & 1012 of 2020
Decided On : 12-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, A. Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.side), R2, V. Sasikumar, Advocate.

Admissibility of documents without formal proof and the court's discretion to grant liberty for marking documents through appropriate procedure.

Headnote:
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - Recall of Witnesses and Marking of Documents - Section 294(b) of Cr.P.C - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were facing trial for offences under Sections 147, 306, and 506(i) of IPC. The prosecution filed applications for the recall of a witness and marking of documents without formal proof. The court considered the contentions of both parties and the prosecution's case, which involved a local body election and criminal intimidation resulting in a death.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that some documents did not require formal proof and could be marked, while others did not meet the criteria for marking without formal proof. The court granted liberty to the prosecution to mark the document in the future through appropriate procedure.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of documents without formal proof and the prosecution's request for the recall of a witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that certain documents could be marked without formal proof, while others required formal proof. It also granted liberty to the prosecution to mark a specific document in the future through appropriate procedure.
Final Decision: The criminal original petitions were allowed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 13.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.5070 and 5071 of 2019 in S.C.No.301 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

Common Order

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

2. The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.301 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, for the offences under Sections 147, 306 and 506(i) of IPC. In the said case, the prosecution took out two applications, namely, Cr.M.P.Nos.5070 and 5071 of 2019. One was for recall of P.W.3 and the other was for marking as many as five documents without they being formally proved. The learned Sessions Judge allowed both the applications by the impugned order dated 13.12.2019. The same is under challenge in these two criminal original petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and wanted this Court to set aside the impugned order in toto.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) as well the defacto complainant submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record.

6. The prosecution case is that in the local body election held in the year 2011, one Maheswaran got elected as ward councillor. He won on behalf of ADMK party. One Karthick Kumar and Vishnu Shankar canvassed for him in the election. The first petitioner Deivendran won on behalf of MDMk Party for 2nd ward.

7. The prosecution case is that Deivendran wanted to contest for the post of Vice Chairman and compelled Maheswaran to vote for him. Maheswaran is said to have refused the said request. Deivendran is said to have nurtured an impression that Karthick Kumar and Vishnu Shankar were responsible for Maheswaran taking such a stand. Deivendran is said to have arranged hooligans to beat up these two individuals on the night of 22.10.2011. These two individuals had taken shelter in their house along with their parents. At about 10.30 p.m., the accused are said to have knocked the house of Karthick Kumar and criminally intimidated the inmates that if Maheshwaran did not vote for Deivendran, they will have to face dire consequences. Dhana Lakshmi, mother of Kathick Kumar, was said to have been the target of the threat. Dhana Lakshmi is said to have consumed poison and died as a result. In this regard, Crime No.926 of 2011 was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, for the offences under Sections 147, 506(i) and 306 of IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was filed and after committal, it was taken up by the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandran, Thoothukudi, for trial in S.C.No.301 of 2016.

8. It is not in dispute that the prosecution side had been examined in full and examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also over. Written arguments have also been filed by Deivendran. The case is yet to be taken up for arguments. At this stage, the prosecution had filed these two applications.

9. It is not in dispute that Maheswaran, who is figuring prominently in the prosecution and who was examined as P.W.8, turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be blamed for taking out a petition for recall. The prosecution wants to mark the following documents without they being formally proved:-

“(1) Certificate copy of the FIR in Cr.No.1051 of 2011 of Kovilpatti West Police Station in C.C.No.126 of 2012, Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti, is one Devindaran, who is arrayed as complainant No.1 in the case.
(2) Deposition of P.W.1 namely Deivendran in C.C.No. 126/2012

Click Here to Read the rest of this document