Dr. Balasundaram vs State

N. Arumugham, J.—This revision on ordering notice of motion, at the admission stage itself, was heard from learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gopinath and learned Government Advocate for and on behalf of the respondents, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Villupuram Ramasamy Padayachiar District in CMP. 1756 of 1995, in S.C.29 of 1995 dated 16.8.1995 filed under S.227 of the Code Criminal Procedure praying for the discharge of the petitioner/9th accused.

Due to prolonged existing enmity between the 9th accused and the deceased, gathering in two groups, in connection with some landed property, pending civil proceedings, on 11.12.1993 some incident had occurred in the bus stand at Villupuram town. Following this, the occurrence involved in this case on 19.12.1993 had emerged out in which the deceased Narayanswami sustained serious injuries '' and in the hospital, which he was being treated, he succumbed to the injuries. After setting the law in motion, the investigating agency interrogated, arrested the accused, investigated the case and laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for the offences under Ss.147, 148, 302 and 109 read with S.302 Indian Penal Code against nine persons among whom the 9th accused is the revision petitioner herein. Since the revision petitioner happens to be a Medical Practitioner, attached to the Government Stanley Medical College Hospital at Madras, is made to involve in this case for the purpose of motive and abetment to commit the offences by the other accused. Pleading total ignorance about his involvement and complicity a petition under S.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the petitioner to discharge him from the trial of the case. However, after contest, learned Sessions Judge has declined to accept it and consequently rejected the same. Aggrieved at this, the present revision has been filed for canvassing the impropriety and illegality of the impugned order above referred to.

I have heard the Bar for and against the impugned order. It was the valiant effort taken by Mr.Gopinath, learned senior counsel for and on behalf of the revision petitioner that the impugned order lacks in all force the legal propriety and legality for the very reasoning that there was no material at all making the petitioner/9th accused to get himself involved in the criminal case and it is not a fancy for a respectable citizen of a society to get roped in a criminal trial. While saying so, Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that except a sentence in the statement of the first accused, no other material or iota of evidence has been made available by the prosecution against the revision petitioner and whatever be the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is only a mere conjecture and nothing more than that and that therefore, the recognised law do not at all permit the charge to be framed against the revision petitioner and the order passed by learned trial Judge is totally lacking in all propriety and legality.

Mr. A.N. Rajan, learned Government Advocate, would point out the statement of the first accused in this case stating that since he and ''Doctor'' were beaten on an earlier occasion, now he got definite instructions to beat him and that ''Doctor'' would meet all the expenses for it. This portion of the evidence, even taking it as granted for admission under S.60 or S.133 of the Evidence Act, it would necessarily come under the category, ''evidence of accomplice''. Though it is admissible in evidence, it is not safe to rely upon for any purpose unless it is strengthened by further corroboration or materials and that is what the settled view now taken by this Court. While perusing for further support, corroboration and materials for establishing the legal canon in this case, it is totally lacking and what are all the materials placed before this Court in this case totally visualise uncorroborated and unsupported the statement of one of the accused. The objection and reasonings given by the trial Court on the basis of the Prosecution, as was rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel, would amount to mere conjecture and nonthing else. Since the Court of law in this country has settled that Courts are not bound to be carried away by mere sentimentality and conjectures, but by legal evidence and in the context of the present case that no materials are available, I do not find any merits or relevant observation in the findings given by learned trial Judge in the impugned order. As was rightly stated, it is not a matter of routine or matter of fancy for a citizen of this Country to stand on a criminal trial to get his innocence proved and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of a person beyond reasonable doubt. Even for framing of charges the Apex Court in Nirenjan Singh Karamsingh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja (1990 Cr.L.J.1869) and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, as well as this Court in a number of cases have repeatedly urged for the evaluation of materials placed before the Court so that it can project a valid and prima facie case against the accused and unless and until it is made available, no charge can be framed. Keeping this in mind and having imported the facts of this case, I am rather finding it very difficult to identify merits for sustaining the impugned order, but however, endorse my view with learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner.

If for any reasoning during the trial, learned Judge comes across with any such evidence against the present revision petitioner, then it is always open for him to take appropriate proceedings under S.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am making this observation for the reasoning that availability of materials should not be allowed to be crippled out.

In the result, for all the reasonings given above, I am convinced in identifying the illegality and impropriety in the impugned order and accordingly, the revision succeeds and stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Villupuram Ramasamy Pandayachiar District in C.M.P.1756 of 1995 in S.C.29 of 1995 dated 9.8.1995 is hereby set aside. Charges, if any, framed against the 9th accused are hereby discharged.