Ratchakar and Another vs State

C.S. Karnan, J.—The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent/Police herein had registered a criminal case in Crime No. 921 of 2010, against the revision petitioners herein and two other

persons for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC, on the strength of the complaint given by the defacto complainant,

viz., one Radhakrishnan stating that he is having two sons and one daughter. The first son is a qualified M.B.B.S. doctor and the second son is

doing the final year B.E. course and the daughter is studying first year B.Sc. degree course at Cauvery College, Trichy. During the college holidays,

his daughter returned to house, wherein, the de facto complainant was staying as a tenant under the first accused, viz., Ratchakar and his wife-

Rani. On 27.10.2010, at about 3 p.m., the second petitioner herein, viz., Rani phoned to the de facto complainant''s wife to come home

immediately and also phoned to the de facto complainant to come to the house immediately. When the de facto complainant reached home, he

found his wife, who had already arrived, in a unconscious state. After she was revived and asked about what had happened in the house, she

replied that his daughter had been raped by the house owner, viz., Ratchakar, who had also set her ablaze and that his daughter''s body is in a

charred state. Immediately, the de facto complainant, Radhakrishnan had asked the first accused/revision petitioner herein, as to why he had raped

and killed his daughter. The first accused and others, viz., third accused and fourth accused had arrogantly replied that the first accused had raped

and killed the girl. Further, they collectively threatened the de facto complainant with deadly weapons and said that they would also kill him.

Hence, the criminal case has been lodged with the respondent/Police.

After receipt of the said complaint, the Investigation Officer conducted an enquiry and filed a charge sheet on 26.12.2010. Subsequently, the case

has been referred to Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

At this juncture, the revision petitioners herein have filed C.M.P. No. 90 of 2011 in S.C. No. 125 of 2011, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila

Court, Cuddalore, to discharge them from the said criminal case. The same had been resisted by the respondent-Police, after filing a counter

statement.

The learned judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels of both sides and on perusing the averments of both parties and also

perusing the charge sheet, which has been filed by the respondent-Police, and after framing an issue, decided the same as against the accused.

Subsequently, the discharge petition has been dismissed by the learned judge, holding that there is a prima facie case and that sufficient valid

grounds have been raised by the respondent-Police as against the accused persons and hence, held that the accused cannot be discharged based

solely on the statement of a single witness.

Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision had been filed by the first and second accused.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the learned judge had not appreciated the facts and evidence of the case and

had failed to note that the prosecution witnesses 3 and 4 viz., Sarasu and Indirani, had stated that the deceased and the accused family had

developed cordial relationship and as such, there was no intention or quarrel to commit the offence by the first accused. The learned counsel has

also pointed out that the learned judge failed to see that L.W.3, i.e., Sarasu, in her evidence had deposed that ""the mother of the deceased had

told the deceased to die and not to see her face. Further, the mother of the deceased on seeing that her daughter had set herself ablaze was unable

to bear her distress and started to roll down on the ground crying loudly"". The learned counsel has further submitted that the suicide has been

committed by the deceased due to harsh words uttered by the mother of the deceased. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no

prima facie case against the revision petitioners to frame charges u/s 306 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has further

submitted that as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses viz., 3 and 4, Sarasu and Indirani, it is evident that the deceased had committed self

immolation.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the revision petitioners herein had threatened the deceased on 27.10.2010 at about 3.40

p.m., hence she had committed suicide. The learned counsel has further submitted that the said case has been registered as Crime No. 921 of

2010 for the offence u/s 376, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. Now, the Inspector of Police, after taking up the case for investigation had inspected the scene

of occurrence and made a rough sketch and observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Further, Postmortem was also conducted and

chemical analysis were also done. The learned counsel has further submitted that the accused were arrested and produced before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. The learned counsel for the State has further pointed out that since the crime is of a heinous nature, the Superintendent

of Police has directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct further investigation in the case. The learned counsel has further submitted

that 45 witnesses had been listed and confessional statements had been collected from the accused and after receipt of the postmortem report, the

offence has been altered as one u/s 306 IPC, after obtaining the learned Public Prosecutor''s opinion. The learned counsel has further submitted

that after a thorough and detailed investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. Subsequently, the

case had been committed to Mahila Court, Cuddalore, on 5.5.2011, who took the case, on the file of S.C. No. 125 of 2011 on 01.07.2011.

Now, the case is posted for hearing on 16.03.2012 for examination of prosecution witnesses. At this point of time, the accused have filed a

discharge petition. Regarding the statement of L.W.3 and L.W.4, a detailed enquiry is necessary in order to determine the veracity of the

evidences. The learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution case is ready for trial. Under, the circumstances, the revision is not

sustainable.

On verifying the prosecution case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order

passed in C.M.P. No. 90 of 2011 in S.C. No. 125 of 2011, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, dated 16.11.2011, this

Court does not find any short comings in the order. This Court is of the further view that the learned judge had dismissed the discharge petition on

merits and also assigned valid reasons and as such, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the speaking order; hence, the above revision is not

maintainable. In the ultimate analysis, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in C.M.P. No. 90 of 2011 in S.C. No. 125

of 2011, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, dated 16.11.2011 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.