A non-mention of an accused's name in an FIR does not automatically warrant discharge; the presence of prima facie evidence must be established.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed, against the order dated

15.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 83 of 2023.

2.The revision-petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.7 in the said Sessions Case.

Prosecution Case :

3.The de-facto complainant, Kannan, lodged a complaint stating that his son, the deceased Udaya Kumar (24 years), was murdered by Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and certain other persons whose identities were then unknown. The incident is said to be retaliatory. Earlier, on 06-08-2022 at about 11.15 a.m., the deceased Udaya Kumar had allegedly murdered one Thangaraja, leading to registration of Crime No. 263 of 2022 for offences under Sections 341 , 294-B and 302 IPC against him. Upon hearing of Thangaraja’s death, his relatives/the accused pursued Uday Kumar as he fled along the Lingavadi–Madathukulam Road. They caught him near the Lingavadi Cooperative Society, tied his hands, and assaulted him with iron rods, sticks, and coconut battens on the head, neck, and chest. When the de-facto complainant and his relatives reached the spot, Uday Kumar had already suffered multiple injuries. He was taken in a “108” ambulance to the Government Hospital, Dindigul, where he was declared dead. Consequently, Crime No.264 of 2022 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294-B, 342 and 302 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 7, in which the 7^th accused was one Solai. After investigation, the respondent police filed a final report under the same sections in S.C.No.83 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, deleting the name of Chinnraj who was arrayed as A5 and by including the Revision petitioner herein as the 7^th accused. Hence, the petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No. 3720 of 2025, seeking to be discharged from the Sessions Case. By order dated 15.04.2025, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner :

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the FIR does not mention the petitioner’s name, nor do the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the name of one Chinnraj (A5), which was omitted from the FIR, was later “substituted” with the petitioner’s name by the prosecution as an after-thought. According to the Section 161 statement of the de-facto complainant recorded on 06.08.2022, it was Chinnaraj who allegedly poured petrol on the deceased and instigated others to set him ablaze and the petitioner’s name finds no place therein. The investigating agency, it is urged, has acted in violation of basic principles of criminal jurisprudence, and the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect while declining discharge. He further insisted that, Nalliappan, the present petitioner's name was not mentioned in the complaint.

4.1.Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another¹, he insisted that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. The court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, if the learned Trial Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion, then discharge can be ordered.

4.2.He further pointed out that though in the written complaint, the overt act of pouring kerosene over the deceased has been attributed