Sujakhani vs State

S. Nagamuthu, J—Six precious lives were snatched away in a gruesome manner by the merciless act of the criminals. It all happened on the night intervening 30.09.2012 and 01.10.2012. Mrs. Kalimuthu, a woman, aged about 30 years, her father and four children were all sleeping in then-lonely house at Thoppuvalasai Village in Ramanathapuram District. They would have never anticipated that end to their lives was fast approaching. It is alleged that by around 01.00 AM, when they were fast asleep, their house was burnt into ash. They also perished in flames. This occurrence was not witnessed by anyone. On the next day, viz., on 01.10.2012, at about 9.00 a.m., one Vallaichamy, who is a relative of the deceased, made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, upon which the present case in Crime No. 301 of 2012 was registered under Sections 147, 436 and 302 IPC. The case was investigated and finally on 29.12.2012, one Mr. P. Jayachandran, the Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, filed a final police report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram. In the said final report, he had reported that a total number of nine persons were involved in the occurrence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 109 and 436 r/w 109 IPC against the accused. On committal, the case was taken cognizance of by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner - Mr. A. Sujakhani, is the seventh accused in the case. He filed a petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in Cr.M.P. No. 2084 of 2013 seeking discharge. In the said petition, he alleged that there was no evidence whatsoever collected against him and the entire final report was based only on the confession allegedly made by the first accused to the investigating officer during the course of investigation. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, however, inter alia held that the admissibility or acceptability of the confessions are all matters to be decided at the time of trial. Thus according to the learned Sessions Judge, there were grounds to frame charges against the accused. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed Cr.M.P. No. 2084 of 2013, by order dated 29.10.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present Criminal Revision Case.

Before proceeding further, let me narrate the contents of the final report filed by Mr. P. Jayachandran, upon which cognizance was taken. According to the said final report, the deceased were, for a long time, residing in the house which was burnt. Her father and four children were also residing with her. The land actually belonged to one Louis Raj, who has been arrayed as the sixth accused in the case. There was an arrangement between the sixth accused and the present petitioner, by which the present petitioner offered to pay some amount of consideration for the land and to sell the land to various other persons. As per the said arrangement, the present petitioner sold away the properties to various persons and out of the said consideration, he paid the amount, as agreed upon, to the sixth accused. The sixth accused, accordingly, executed sale deeds in favour of the purchasers.

It is the further case that the deceased, who had no right whatsoever on the land, refused to vacate. The family members of the deceased were often threatened to vacate. There were also proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the other authorities between them. Since the deceased family did not vacate the land and hand over vacant possession to the purchasers, there developed ill-feeling, which later on developed into a very strong motive for Mr. Louis Raj - 6th accused and the petitioner herein. According to the final report, seven days prior to the alleged occurrence, there was a conspiracy. In the said conspiracy, the accused Nos. 1, 6 & 7 participated. The conspiracy was to engage hirelings to do away with the entire family members of the deceased. Regarding this conspiracy, though in the final report, there were allegations and cognizance was taken by the Court, there were no materials collected to even make out a prima facie case to frame charge of conspiracy, on this aspect, against the petitioner, except the confession statement said to have made by the first accused on his arrest to the Police.

It is the further allegation in the said final report that on 30.09.2012 in the evening, in the seashore, there was another conspiracy, in which A1, A2 and A3 participated with few unknown persons. This conspiracy was the continuation of the earlier conspiracy and forming part of the same transaction. Regarding the second conspiracy also, Mr. P. Jayachandran relied on the so called confession statement given by the first accused to him during the course of investigation. Apart from the above, two witnesses cited as witnesses 26 & 27 had seen these three accused together in the seashore. It is based on the statements of these two witnesses and the confession given to the police, Mr. PJayachandran reported that there was second conspiracy.

It is further reported that in the actual occurrence, three accused viz., A1 -Mr. Lathe Muniyandi, A2 -Vellaisamy and A3 - Centru @ Nagarajan, participated. In other words, these three accused only burnt the house and committed the murder of all the six inmates of the house. In order to prove the participation of these three accused in the actual occurrence in pursuance of the conspiracy also, there were no sufficient materials collected by the earlier Investigating Officer.

When this Criminal Revision Case came up for hearing before this Court, on 17.04.2015, on considering the above facts, this Court passed the following order:

"It often happens in this country that even in heinous crimes, the Police bring to book some persons as the accused, the Courts proceed with the trial, ultimately, only to acquit the accused for want of proof of the involvement of the accused. The society at large, without fully aware of the nature of the evidence produced by the Police, at times, put the blame on Courts of law for acquitting the accused. The system is impelled to bear the ignominy. On that score, no Court of law can travel beyond the frame work of law to punish the accused where the investigation is shoddy and no materials have been placed before the Court by the Police. But, it cannot be lost sight of that when the real culprits escape from clutches of law for want of evidence, the net result is the failure of justice to the victims and the society. Therefore, in order to ensure justice, it becomes necessary in extreme cases that the Courts have to monitor the investigation which should otherwise be done by the superior police officers. The instant case is a classical illustration of such a grave situation, warranting the intervention of this Court.

Six precious lives have been snatched away in a gruesome manner. The petitioner is the 7th accused in the case in S.C. No. 8 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Manila Court, Ramanathapuram. Totally there are 9 accused in the case. They have been prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 436, 302, 120(B) read with Section 109 and 149 IPC.

Due to a civil dispute, according to the prosecution, six people including four children have been done to death, while they were fast asleep in their house. The house was burnt along with the deceased. The Investigating Officer, in the final report, has cited as many as 44 witnesses and a number of documents. Contending that from the police report and the documents and statements submitted there with, absolutely, there is no material against the petitioner to frame charges, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 2084 of 2013 before the lower Court seeking discharge. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, however, by order dated 29.10.2014 dismissed the said petition thereby declining to discharge the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision.

This revision came up for hearing on 15.04.2015. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner took me through all the materials placed along with the final report as well as the final report and submitted that there is no material against the petitioner to frame charges. According to the final report, one week prior to the actual date of occurrence, namely, 01.10.2012, there was a conspiracy among the accused involving the petitioner, in which, the conspirators had hatched a plan to commit murder of all the six deceased. The task was, according to the conspiracy, entrusted to the first accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the previous day before the actual day of occurrence, some of the accused were found on the seashore in the occurrence village, in which also, it is alleged that the conspiracy was again reiterated. On the following night, the occurrence had taken place.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, even according to the prosecution case, he was not present at the time, when the 2nd conspiracy was hatched and he did not participate in the actual occurrence as well. It is their definite case that in the first conspiracy, which took place seven days prior to the alleged occurrence alone, the petitioner participated.

In the course of the proceedings, this Court, while going through the papers, expressed its displeasure that the investigation has not been done in the manner, in which, it is required to be done by the police. Regarding the reasons for such displeasure and materials available on record, I refrain from making any record, because any comment, which I may make, may have influencing effect in the mind of the trial Court, as the trial is pending. I deem it suffice to record my displeasure over way in which the investigation has been done.

I do not understand as to how the Deputy Director of Prosecution, after having gone through the case diary, was pleased enough to give node for final report. The Investigating Officer, who was present before this Court, was not able to say anything to obliviate doubts, loopholes, shortcomings, etc., which this Court had noticed. His explanation was not at all satisfactory to this Court. Therefore, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District to be present before this Court with necessary explanation and also to state as to whether he had any occasion to monitor the investigation in this case, though six valuable lives have been lost in the occurrence in a very gruesome manner.

As directed, today, the Superintendent of Police, Mr. M. Mayilvahanan is present before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent.

The Superintendent of Police tacitly admitted before this Court that he had no occasion to go through the case diary in this case until he was summoned by this court to appear today. He would further explain that he was pre-occupied in the law and order issues due to communal clash in Ramanathapuram District, and thus he had no occasion to monitor the investigation in this case. However, he would submit that having gone through the papers, more particularly the case diary, now, he himself is not satisfied with the investigation. In order to rectify the same, he would submit that he himself would take up the further investigation of this matter and leave no stone unturned by doing a thorough further investigation. He has also filed an affidavit to that effect. The said assurance given to this Court is appreciated. In the instant case, though this Court, as of now, may find that there are no sufficient materials against the petitioner, on that score, I am not inclined to pass final order in this revision at this stage.

I am prima facie satisfied that the investigation has been so badly done. A fair investigation, which will lead to fair trial has been held to be a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, [vide the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 9 JT 177 : (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2010) 10 SCR 651 : (2010) 8 UJ 3896 . The fairness in investigation is not a concept relevant only to the accused. Fairness in investigation means the investigation should be fair to the victim, to the accused and to the Society at large. Similarly fair trial means that trial should be fair to one and all, namely, the accused, victims, their relatives and the Society at large. When the fair investigation and fair trial are constitutional mandates provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in die instant case, at this stage, this Court cannot simply close its eyes and allow the real culprits, whoever, it may be to escape by simply working like a machine on the papers placed before the Court. It is necessary for this Court to ensure that the above fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India is really achieved. Therefore, as a part of the Constitutional obligation of this Court, I am of the view that it is absolutely necessary for this Court to issue a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Mr. M. Mayilvahanan, to take up the case for further investigation to himself to be assisted by a team of efficient officers and to file an additional final report before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Manila Court, Ramanathapuram.

Until such, additional final report is submitted, the further proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Ramanthapuram, to which now the case has been transferred, shall stand stayed.

Mr. Mayilvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, who has been entrusted with the task of further investigation, is not required to seek any further formal permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate or from the Sessions Court. He is granted two months time to do the investigation and he shall report to this Court about the progress made in the matter on 25.06.2015. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court. The Registry is to list this case for further hearing on 25.06.2015."

On 17.04.2015, Mr. N.M. Mylvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanthapuram District, assured to this Court that he would take up further investigation and come up with an appropriate report with materials.

Accordingly, today Mr. N.M. Mylvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanthapuram District, is present in Court and he has filed an affidavit, wherein he has stated as follows;

"It is respectfully submitted that the Hon''ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in its order in CRL.RC(MD) No. 167/2015 in M.P(MD) No. 01/2015 dated 17.04.2015 directed me to conduct further investigation in Uchipuli Police Station Crime No. 301/2012 u/s. 147, 436, 302, 120 (B) r/w 109 and 149 IPC.

It is submitted that as per the order I took up investigation of the above said case on 24.04.2015 by forming a team of officers Additional Superintendent of Police Head Quarters and Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Records Bureau, Ramanathapuram District to assist me in the investigation and proceeded with investigation. I visited the scene of occurrence along with my team, Revenue Officials and Scientific Experts, prepared observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch and took Photographs and examined witnesses at and around SOC and recorded their statements under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and collected documentary evidences.

It is submitted that I was in the meantime deputed to attend IPS Officers Induction Training course held at National Police Academy, Hyderabad from 05.05.2015 to 12.06.2015. During my absence, I directed the Additional Superintendent of Police Head Quarters and Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Records Bureau, Ramanathapuram District to conduct further investigation in this case. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Ramanathapuram District examined witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and also collected material evidences.

It is submitted that after completion of my training I continued the investigation from 14.06.2015 and examined remaining witnesses; all the nine accused were also enquired and their statements recorded. There are in all 108 witnesses who were examined and fifty documentary evidences were also collected to prove the offence.

It is submitted that from the statements of witnesses and documents collected and perused the following four accused namely (1) Muniyandi @ Lathe Muniyandi (2) Kalimuthan (3) Sujakhani and (4) Louis Raj appear to have committed offences punishable under section 302, 436, 120 (B), 109 r/w 34 IPC.

It is humbly submitted that after completion of my investigation I have filed additional final report against the above stated four accused on 24.06.2015 before the Hon''ble Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram as directed and the remaining five accused already charged were deleted from the final report because of lack of incriminating evidences against them.

The Police Officers who erred in the investigation may be dealt with departmental proceedings for the lapse.

Wherefore it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to accept this compliance report in the interest of Justice and thus render Justice."

He has also produced the case diary for the inspection of this Court. As per the present further investigation police report submitted by him, the conspiracy said to have happened seven days before the occurrence involving the accused 1, 6 & 7 is not true. Similarly, according to him, the second conspiracy involving the accused 1, 2 & 3 and several others on 30.09.2012 on the sea shore is also not true. So far as the actual occurrence, in which the house along with the inmates was burnt, according to the earlier report submitted by Mr. PJayachandran, A1 - Lathe Muniyandi, A2 - Vellaichamy and A3 Centru @ Nagarajan, together participated, but now as per the present report of the Superintendent of Police, only two people participated in the occurrence viz., the first accused - Lathe Muniyandi and Kalimuthan [A-8]. It needs to be noted that Mr. Kalimuthan did not participate in the burning of the house, as per the earlier report. The accused 2 & 3 viz., Vellaichamy and Centru @ Nagarajan have been now left out. According to the present report, Mr. Vellaichamy and Mr. Centru @ Nagarajan did not participate in the occurrence at all and contrary report earlier filed by the previous Inspector of Police is not correct.

To put it in nutshell, out of the nine accused, against whom earlier report was filed now, five have been omitted. According to the present report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, only four people have participated in the crime viz, Mr. Lathe Muniyandi (A1), Mr. Louis Raj (A6), Mr. Sujakhani (AT) (revision petitioner herein) and Mr. Kalimuthan [A-8]. I have the benefit of going through the case diary also and the report submitted and all other connected materials.

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the present report, which is the result of a thorough investigation by a higher ranking officer, may be accepted and appropriate direction may be issued to the lower Court to proceed with the trial as against the four accused against whom the present further police report has been submitted.

This Court pointed out to the learned Additional Advocate General that when there are now two reports, one by the previous investigating officer and the other by the present Superintendent of Police, which are conflicting and called upon to explain as to why should this Court choose to accept the final report submitted by the Superintendent of Police. For this, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since under the monitoring of this Court, the Superintendent of Police has conducted thorough investigation in an unbiased manner, the present report may be accepted. On my part, I have also gone through the case diary. Having gone through the same, I deem it appropriate to accept the said report of the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police now shall be accepted by the trial Court and the trial Court shall proceed further based on the same.

It is now brought to my notice that charges have been framed and the case has been made over to the Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, for trial. Since the accused is entitled for copies of the documents collected during further investigation, such as, statements of witnesses, mahazars etc., the trial Court shall furnish free copies of these documents, statements, mahazars, etc filed along with the further Police report submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the four accused, against whom the present report has been filed, as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the accused have got right of hearing on these materials and since I am inclined to allow this revision, the charges framed already by the trial Court have to be set aside. The trial Court should afford sufficient opportunity to the four accused, against whom the final report has been filed, before framing charges.

Now, turning to the case of the other five persons viz., Vellaichamy S/o. Aathan (arrayed as A2), Centru @ Nagarajan S/o. Gurusamy (arrayed as A3), Mangalanathan S/o. Kuttichamy (arrayed as A4) Kumar S/o. Thangavel (arrayed as A5) and Punchatcharam S/o. Nagu (arrayed as A9) (hereinafter referred to as "the victims"), they shall stand discharged from the case, as, according to the present report, they have got no involvement in the crime at all.

Now, the next question is as to whether simply letting these five victims free would amount to doing of justice. In my considered view, it is not so. It is brought to the notice of this Court that these five victims, who are not before this Court, are all poor villagers and they are also illiterate, who are not well-versed with their rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that these five victims were arrested and detained in prison for 93 days, until they were released on bail. The said incarceration in prison for 93 days, in my considered view, would have caused lot of mental agony and trauma for these victims.

Apart from the above, they have been dragged to the Court in connection with this case from the year 2012, viz., for three years. The amount of time, money and the energy spent by them cannot be brushed aside. In my considered view, the act of the police, in this case, in falsely implicating these persons in a case of six murders is nothing short of a gravest human rights violation. The right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious right and the State has got every obligation to ensure to its citizens as well as non-citizens of this right. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, life does not mean a mere existence. Life means, dignified life with all natural human rights to be enjoyed by an individual. In other words, it is the obligation of the State to ensure a dignified life to its citizens. Implicating a person in a criminal case falsely, causing ever lasting stigma not only on him, but also on the entire family, taking him to the Court and by branding him as a murderer for three years, in my considered view, are all very serious human rights violations, violating their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is true that these victims of human rights violation are not before this Court. But, at the same time, this Court, being a creature of the constitution, to ensure human rights and the fundamental rights of the citizens of this Country, cannot close its eyes, even after having come to notice that such a serious human rights violation has been committed to these poor innocent villagers.

If this Court simply records letting these accused free, without making any more attempt to alleviate their grievances, I am of the firm view that it would not amount to doing of justice. Such course is expected of from this Court. Though these victims are not before this Court, I am of the view that as a measure of alleviating their sorrows and sufferings, monetary compensation needs to be ordered. I am sure that any amount of compensation may not be a substitute for the amount of human rights violations committed by the police in this case. I am only hopeful that the paltry amount of compensation, which I intend to order for, will at least wipe out the tears of these innocent people to some extent. Of course, these persons have got legal right to claim compensation independently from the authorities concerned, but, that will not deter this Court from granting compensation in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of this Court to pass any order to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, I am of the firm view that ordering the State to pay compensation to these victims alone would meet the ends of justice.

Now, turning to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that he cannot express any view on this aspect, without getting instructions from the Government. But, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that going by the agonies, sufferings and the stigma caused to the victims, each may be awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. N.R. Elango, yet another learned Senior Counsel, who were present in Court, were requested by this Court to place their views as Amicus Curiae. They expressed that the victims may be entitled for a reasonable amount of compensation, which may go up to a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, per head.

Having regard to these submissions, having regard to the amount of agony, stigma, sorrows and sufferings of these victims, I deem it appropriate to order for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per head. This order of compensation will not deter the victims to make separate claims under civil law, if they are so advised for further compensation.

In the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, he has recommended for departmental action against Mr. P. Jayachandran. While considering the question of compensation, I took into account as to whether the victims were falsely implicated, knowingly by Mr. P. Jayachandran or they were implicated without collecting sufficient materials against them. It is seen from the records that Mr. P. Jayachandran had no motive against these victims. He had acted on the confession given by the first accused in the case. But, he had failed to collect materials to verify as to whether the confession given by the first accused was true or whether the involvement of these persons is also true. Thus, it is seen that Mr. P. Jayachandran had failed to collect sufficient materials to verify as to whether these persons were involved in the crime or not. Therefore, as recommended by the Superintendent of Police, it is for the Director General of Police to deal with Mr. P. Jayachandran departmentally, provided the appointing authority has got materials to show that he has committed any misconduct, as per the Service Rules. I do not want to express any opinion regarding the conduct of Mr. P. Jayachandran, because any such opinion or observation, which I may make, may have some influence in the mind of the appointing authority. Therefore, I leave it open for the Director General of Police to decide on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police.

In this Criminal Revision Case, when it was pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that there were no materials against this petitioner and that the entire final report is based only on the confession said to have been given by the first accused to the police, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said contention, by making the following observation:--

"the admissibility or acceptability of the confessions are all matters to be decided at the time of trial".

It is only on this finding, the Trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner herein. This observation made by the Trial Court, I regret to say, only shows the total ignorance of the rudimentary principles of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Section 25 of the Act states that the confession made to a police officer is not relevant and the same shall not be admitted in evidence. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case deserves to be allowed, the order dated 29.10.2014 made in Cr.MP. No. 2084 of 2013, is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, after furnishing copies of all the documents and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein to raise additional grounds.

It is also unfortunate to note that in this case, the learned Public Prosecutor, who argued the case before the Trial Court, also did not notice that there were no materials and the investigation was full of flaws. Had he taken notice and advised the police, I believe, they would have made further investigation, after getting necessary permission from the Court. He has also failed on this aspect.

The whole episode would not have come to the notice of this Court, but for this Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioner herein. As I have already pointed out, the five accused, who are now dropped, have not approached this Court. But, for this Criminal Revision Case filed by this petitioner, there would have been no occasion for this Court to order for further investigation, which has resulted in the present report, giving clean chit to the five innocent people. Had the learned Sessions Judge been vigilant, this kind of direction would have been given by him for further investigation.

These observations, which I have made hereinabove, only go to show that the agencies, which are expected to be sensitized, have shown disregard to the human rights of these poor people, which has made the State to pay compensation to these victims, vicariously. More often than not, this Court has been making suggestions and at times issuing directions to the Police Department about the need for improving the skill of investigation and to sensitize the Investigating Officers by conducting regular legal workshops. I apprehend that the said observations and directions have not been taken note of seriously. The Tamil Nadu Police, which is even today considered to be one of the best police in the Country, may have to lose its status, prestige and glory, if this trend continues. I am only hopeful that the State Government will take serious note of this situation and take all out efforts to enhance the quality of the investigation and the skill of the investigators. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the following terms:--

"The impugned order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge made in Cr.MP. No. 2084 of 2013, dated 29.10.2014, is set aside and Cr.MP. No. 2084 of 2013 is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Manila Court, Ramanathapuram, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after furnishing copies of the documents and the statements of the witnesses, submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanthapuram District, along with the further police report and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

The charges framed already against all the accused shall stand set aside. The Trial Court shall afford sufficient opportunity to the accused and then to consider to frame charges, in accordance with law.

The Trial Court shall accept the further police report submitted by Mr. N.M. Mylvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, and proceed with the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

The victims, Mr. A. Vellaichamy S/o. Aathan, Mr. G. Centru @ Nagarajan S/o. Gurusamy, Mr. K. Mangalanathan S/o. Kuttichamy, Mr. T. Kumar, S/o. Thangavel and Mr. N. Punchatcharam S/o. Nagu shall stand discharged from the case and they are set free. The Government of Tamil Nadu, viz., the Secretary, Home Police Department, shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to each of the above persons, viz., Mr. A. Vellaichamy S/o. Aathan, Mr. G. Centru @ Nagarajan S/o. Gurusamy, Mr. K. Mangalanathan S/o. Kuttichamy, Mr. T. Kumar, S/o. Thangavel and Mr. N. Punchatcharam, S/o. Nagu, within a period of two months from today.

The amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the above persons by way of cheque or demand draft drawn in the name of the individual concerned, through the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanthapuram and the same shall be reported to this Court."

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Before parting with this order, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the efforts taken by Mr. N.M. Mylvahanan, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanthapuram District, who has completed the further investigation, within the time frame and submitted a report, which is prima facie found to be satisfactory.

Registry is directed to list the matter, on 25.08.2015 for reporting compliance.