IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Uma Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri - Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 7296 of 2022 & Crl. M.P. Nos. 4169, 5610 of 2022
Decided On : 15-07-2022
Abuse of Process of Law - Quashing of Final Report - IPC 120(b), 153(A), Explosive Substance Act 4, 5, 6, Arms Act 25(1)(a) - Sections 10, 133 of Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to quash the Final Report for offenses under various sections including IPC 120(b), 153(A), Explosive Substance Act 4, 5, 6, and Arms Act 25(1)(a). The prosecution alleged the petitioner and her husband were involved in arms training and terrorist activities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there were materials collected during the investigation, including confession statements implicating the petitioner. The Court held that the confession of the other accused can be used as evidence and that the case requires a trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of confession statements, and the possibility of quashing the Final Report.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the confession of the other accused can be a foundation of conviction and is admissible against all persons in a conspiracy charge. It also highlighted the importance of proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner's personal appearance was dispensed with before the Trial Court, except for specific proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in P.R.C.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrat No.II, Dharmapuri and quash the same.)
1. This petition has been filed to quash the Final Report taken on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri for the offences under Sections 120(b), 153(A) of I.P.C., Section 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act r/w 109 I.P.C.
2. The Petitioner is the A12 who is the wife of A11. The crux of the prosecution charge is that due to the death of one person belonging to vanniyar community due to love affairs between two different community boy and girl, there were violence against the Schedule Caste people and houses were burnt which also led to damages to the property. After sometime the boy of the Schedule Caste died in a suspicious circumstance. To take vengeance against the other group, the accused joined together to unleash the violence against the other group, were took armed training with weapons under the Thudi movement which was incharge of A11 and A12 husband and wife. All other accused also joined with terrorist movement of naxalpari and tried to assassinate some important persons in other communities. It is the contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner and her husband under their supervision there was arms training to the other accused. During the investigation, the country made guns and other deadly weapons were seized. After completing the investigation, the prosecution filed Final Report.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that there is no materials against the accused; in the FIR her name is not found, only in the Final Report her name is found. Except some confession statement of the other accused implicating A12 there is no other materials available on record to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, submitted that the prosecution is nothing but abuse of process of law and it is his contention that the confession of the other accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be used against this petitioner. Hence submitted that the entire Final Report has to be quashed against this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is a professor and possessed doctorate to her credit she has been unnecessarily implicated.
4. He has also relied upon the following judgments of the Honourable Apex Court :
2. Kalpnath Rai vs. State through CBI [AIR 1998 SC 201]
3. State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & others [1977 AIR 1489]
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are materials collected during the investigation, apart from the confession statements. Therefore, the Court cannot go to the probative value of the statements. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence come on record. Hence opposed the petition.
6. Normally when the materials are collected by trial Court and prima facie materials are available against the accused, Court would slow in exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Only in the exceptional cases, where the prosecution itself is motivated or interested with mala fide, motive or if there are no materials to proceed further, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In all the judgments of the Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the Apex Court after appreciating the evidence in appeal stage, while acquitting the accused has held that the confession alone is not substantive piece of evidence. In the above case, the dictum of the Apex Court is that the very confession itself cannot be a foundation of conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel will not be helpful to him.
7. On perusal of the materials
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.