Thangamani vs State by Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Nagercoil

N. Arumugham, J.—The challenge in this Revision is against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl. M.P. No. 408 of 1995 in Sessions Case No. 571 of 1994 dated 6.7.1995, declining to accept the prayer of discharge of the revision Petitioner, who is the first accused in the above case, on the ground that the whole prosecution case in its entirety has been cooked up against him.

The Petitioner herein, who is the first accused, along with other five persons, is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 232, 324, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code, in that at about 6 p.m. on 3.1.1993, at Peruvilai, part of Nagercoil town, within the jurisdiction of Asaripallam Police Station in Crime No. 1 of 1993, having formed an unlawful assembly among themselves with the common object of committing riot with weapons in their hands like aruval, and caused injuries, jointly and severally on one Balamurugan and Govindan, of whom, Balamurugan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, on the early hours of the next day in the hospital, despite treatment given to him and after due investigation, the Respondent-police filed the final report before the competent Court of law and they were committed to the Court of Sessions by the trial Magistrate.

After the process were issued, all the accused entered their appearance and copies were furnished to them. However, when the case was posted for framing of charges, the 1st accused/revision herein filed a petition u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for his discharge from the case on the ground that he has been implicated in the case falsely at the instance of his enemies by name Jesurathinam with his two sons, by name Ajith and Ashok, along with his associates, who are his arch rivals, and for which, the complainant has been used as a tool by the said persons, in order to subvert the complaint given by the Petitioner against them for causing damage to his valuable properties at his house, to the value of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs on the same day at the same place, even though a complaint was given by him to the same police station, and the same had been registered by the police, but however, managed to give the next crime number, i.e., Crime No. 2 of 1993 for the offences u/s 147, 148, 427, 506 part II, and 436, Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged that the Respondent had investigated both the cases in Crime Nos. 1 and 2 of 1993, but however, obliged to the said persons Jesurathinam and his persons and referred the same after a period of one year, as undetectable. It was also the case of the Petitioner that the two established circumstances appearing in the copies of the documents, served to the accused and relied on by the prosecution, would show that the Petitioner had no hand at all in the commission of the said offence and has been falsely implicated by his rivals. According to the Petitioner, the medical certificate given to the two injured and the autopsy certificate given by the Doctor, for the injuries found on the person of Balamurugan, one of the injured, and who subsequently happened to be the deceased, would not render any support to the prosecution case on the one hand, but, on the other hand, conflicts directly with the total version of the complainant as well as the eye witnesses and that the accounting of the eye witnesses, including the First Information Report, by themselves, reveal that the Petitioner''s name has been implicated subsequently falsely without any basis, which factum has been clearly overlooked by the learned trial Judge, while framing the charges against this Petitioner, u/s 227 of the Code. It was sought to be said, according to the Petitioner, that the prosecution case in its entirety is an embellishment in toto by roping in the Petitioner with the criminal intention of making himself involved as if he had actually participated in the commission of the offence and that the Court below had virtually failed to apply its mind to evaluate the evidence made available by the prosecution to frame any charge as against this Petitioner and upon the basis of the said contention, the relief of discharge was asked for.

On being resisted, the Respondent has contended that in so far as the complaint given by one Annamani, father of the deceased and the accounting of the four eye witnesses in their Section 161 statements, clearly show the very overt act of the Petitioner and that therefore, the very nexus essential for finding prima facie material against the Petitioner is very much available, barring the support of the medical evidence and that therefore, the relief asked for cannot be granted.

After having considered the rival contentions, the learned Sessions Judge, declined to discharge the Petitioner and consequently rejected the same by passing the impugned order. It was this order being canvassed in this revision for want of legal sanctity and propriety.

I have heard Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner and the contra by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

It was the valiant contention made by Mr. G.R. Edmund for and on behalf of the Petitioner that learned Sessions Judge had deliberately avoided the attendant circumstances that two violent occurrences had taken place at or about the same time; but however in two different places, within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station involving both the parties herein, who are arch rivals against each other and that consequently two complaints were lodged with the Police and registered in Crime Nos. 1 and 2 of 1993 in respect of separate and distinct offences; but however the case in the subsequent crime viz., Crime No. 2 of 1993 had been referred as undetectable much later in point of time. The wound certificate, upon which reliance was placed by the prosecution, issued to deceased Balamurugan at the earliest point of time and the wound certificate given by the same Doctor for one of the eye witness-cum-injured witness by name Govindan, had not at all been considered by the Court below, with reference to their contents. If the above aspects were taken into consideration, it would clearly show that the so called First Information Report in this case is a cooked up one, in so far as this Petitioner is concerned, and his name has been implicated falsely by Annamani. In short, Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the Petitioner would categorise his argument that neither Govindan, one of the eye witnesses, who died subsequently, nor Balamurugan, the other injured, who died in the earlier occasion, had claimed that the revision Petitioner was one among the assailants, or participated in either of the two occurrences and even so, it was made so clear that he has been implicated falsely.

On the other hand, it was the effort of the learned Government Advocate to reiterate his stand made in his resistance before the Court below and then again stated that the availability of the F.I.R. with the Section 161 statements of the eye witnesses, would clearly involve the by his specific overt act and that therefore, he would justify the impugned order.

In the light of the above rival submissions, the one and only question that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order is vitiated by any illegality or impropriety.

It is the case of the prosecution that about 6 p.m. on 3.1.1993 at Peruvilai, there was an occurrence, in which two persons by name Balamurugan and Govindan were attacked by several persons as a result of which, both of them had sustained injures upon their body and consequently, One of the injured by name Balamurugan had been taken to the police station by his father Annamani and gave complaint there itself and then he was referred to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil for treatment with a medical memo, escorted by a police constable and admitted therein and in spite of the treatment given to him, he passed away on the next day early morning, i.e. 4.1.1993 at about 3 a.m. The other injured by name Govindan also went to the hospital at about 1 a.m. that night and had been treated for his injuries. The above factum of the case is clear, as evident from the copy of the accident register and the wound certificate given by the medicos of the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, which have been produced by the Respondent before the Court below.

The copy of the wound certificate given to the deceased Balamurugan, who was one of the injured, shows that he was brought to the Hospital at 7:55 p.m. on 3.1.1993 by P.C. 1094. It is stated therein that he was alleged to have been attacked by a gang by long over head, face and leg at about 6.30 p.m. near Christober Nagar Colony. At that time, the patient was conscious and nervous and drowsy. Pulse was 52/pmt. B.P. 100/70pmt. His pupils on observation showed normally in both the eyes. Four injuries were found on his person.

Lacerated injury over Rt. Parietal area - size 4 x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone deep with fresh bleeding.

Another lacerated injury was seen nearby - size 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone deep swelling was seen all around and fresh bleeding from the nesal was present.

An abrasion was seen over chin - size 2 x 2 c.m.

An abrasion was seen over left leg in between the knee and ankle - size 2 x... c.m. swelling was seen all around the wound.

The wound certificate given to witness Govindan and relied on by the prosecution contained the following: Govindan, son of Chellappan, aged 23, an inhabitant of Peruvilai Asaripallam, who was sent by the S.I. of Police with memo. 135/4/Hos/93 dated 3.1.1993 and accompanied by Vincent, for report as to certain injuries said to have been caused on 3.1.1993 at 5:30 p.m. and due to assault by 5 known persons by using over head, left shoulder, and right shoulder in Christopher Colony. Patient was conscious, Pulse 72/mt. B.P. 110/70 m mal Hg Pupies NS on BE, reading to light. The following injuries were found on his person.

A Swelling seen over back of right shoulder with minor abrasion size 3 x 3 c.m.

Another swelling seen over right fore arm on posterior aspect - 3 x 2 c.m. with minor abrasion.

Another swelling over left fore-arm size 2 x 2 c.m.

Another contusion seen over left ankle joint with minor abrasion 3 x 2 c.m.

A lacerated injury seen over right parietal region 2 x 1 x c.m.

Another lacerated injury over parietal region 1 x 2 c.m. length.

On a perusal of the above two documents, I felt some doubt with the result, I had to send for the records from the Court below, and I have gone through the same. In the original wound certificate, bearing No. 88 relating to Govindan, on the 9th line, after the words ''and to be due to assault by 5'' in the word ''unknown'', the letters ''un'' have been obliterated by scoring several times over that up and down to make it appear ''5 known persons''. i.e., to say, the original word ''unknown'' had been changed into ''known''. Therefore, when the copies were prepared for this document, it was typed ''assault by 5 known persons''. This evidence in the above document seems to have not been taken at all nor adverted to by the learned trial Judge, while framing the charge. As I have felt some doubt with regard to the consistency of the case of the prosecution, as I have already discussed, I have looked into the entire case records, after they were brought from the trial court. My search revealed that the medical memos given by the Police to the hospital for both the injured persons, which came into existence at the earliest point of time, are totally missing and have not been produced in spite of my directions to the learned Government Advocate to produce the same. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. A.N. Rajan pleaded his inability to produce the same as they are missing and not available in the case diary nor with case records.

The cumulative effect of the above, if considered and relied on as being done by the prosecution, it would clinch the fact that the assailants, who inflicated injuries on the person of Balamurugan and Govindan, were not known to them and that is why they have stated before the medicos at the earliest point of time, that they were injured by assault by ''unknown persons'' and they had also not known the number of persons who assaulted them. Above all, in these documents, they have not mentioned the name of the Petitioner nor any of his overt acts, as claimed by the prosecution. It is seen that the Court below has not even adverted to the said aspects, which go to the root of the prosecution case against the Petitioner after having been pointed out by the Bar in the petition itself, In this context, I have to necessarily advert to the very observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order under this revision.

On a careful analysis of the respective arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the P.P., I am persuaded to hold that Crl. No. 2/93 registered at the instance of the Petitioner/1st accused cannot make any difference and the conclusion of the investigating officer that the case is not detectable will not give any advantage to the Petitioner/1st accused. A careful perusal of the entire record filed on behalf of the prosecution would go to show that there is sufficient evidence to prove the presence of the Petitioner/1st accused at the time of the incident and also his involvement. The statement of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside even before examining them. The contradiction between the medical evidence and the version of the eye witnesses can be taken advantage of only at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to agree with the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and hold that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the Petitioner.

A careful scrutiny of the findings and observations made by the Court below would reveal that the reference to the complaint given by the Petitioner, would not provide him with an advantageous position and that there are lot of materials available to identify the very involvement of the Petitioner with his overt acts and that therefore, the statement of witnesses cannot be brushed aside before examination and that the contradiction between the medical evidence and the eye witnesses account can be taken advantage of only at the conclusion of the trial. The very observation made by the learned trial Judge clearly out of point to be considered with that of the very contentions raised before him by and on behalf of the revision Petitioner. In short, to say, the learned trial Judge has overlooked the above two documents, as rightly contended by the Petitioner even before him, for, the contents of these have been referred to in the petition itself before the Court below. No doubt it is true that the gradation of the conflict between the account of the eye witnesses, on the one hand, and the medicos, on the other, can be weighed by the trial Judge after a full trial is over. But for the limited purpose of framing charge, it must be necessarily the duty of the trial Judge u/s 227 of the Code, to evaluate the whole documents and materials and the evidence produced before him in order to find out the very existence of the prima facie case. This does not however mean to confine itself to the mere parrot like repeating made in the name of statements, but also the essence of the other documents like wound certificate and accident register relied on by the prosecution, can be looked into.

One other important and significant circumstances in this case made available, is the order passed by this Court in Cr. O.P. Nos. 539 and 596 of 1993 dated 13.1.1993. It appears four other accused viz., accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, by name Kennedy, Sadasivam, Natarajan and Karuthapazham, filed Cr. O.P. No. 539 of 1993, praying for anticipatory bail in Cr. No. l of 1993. The present revision Petitioner filed a separate petition for bail in Cr. O.P. No. 596 of 1993. Both the petitions were heard on 13.1.1993 with the arguments of the counsel for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the Respondent, by a learned single Judge of this Court and the following order was passed therein.

These two petitions are disposed of together since Petitioners are stated to be involved in the same crime. Petitioners in Cr. O.P. No. 539 of 1993, plead for bail in the event of their arrest, while plea of the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596 of 1993 is for bail., Crime No. 1 of 1993 on the file of Assaripallam Police Station was initially registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 341, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C. and was later altered into one u/s 302 I.P.C. on the death of Balamurugan, who succumbed to injuries, sustained. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place at or about 6.00 P.M. on 3.1.1993 at Kizhperumvilai village. There seems to have been prior enmity between the parties. Sequel for the incident was the provocative address made by one Yesurathinam in the local Church at 7.45 A.M. on the occurrence morning. Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596/93 is alleged to have dissuaded Yesurathinam from addressing Church visitors in that pattern.

(2) There is no dispute that on the evening of 3.1.1993 the house of the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596/93 (Thangamani) was ransacked and mischief committed. Motor cycle of the said Petitioner was also burnt. Evidence of such attrocious acts has been collected during the course of investigation on the complaint preferred by Thangamani (Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596/93), registered as Cr. No. 2/93. Both parties claim that the impugned occurrence had taken place at 6:00 p.m. in their respective complaints. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the occurrence in Cr. No. 2/93 was in retaliation. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that as a mediator deceased Balamurugan went over to the house of Thangamani at or about 3:00 p.m. and not having been successful in arriving at a settlement returned to the house of Yesurathinam. It was much later that he was attacked in a public street. Prima facie, it appears that there was a clash, in which two groups have involved themselves in spite of the fact that they were not inimically disposed, earlier. Though the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596/93 is alleged to have cut on the head of the deceased with an aruval, to the Doctor, who examined him immediately it has been stated, that only sticks were used in the attack. The injury found on the victim also indicates the possibility of a stick having been used and not an aruval. It is also clear that one Ganapathy, belonging to the party of the accused, sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence. I have already stated about the damage caused to the house of Thangamani, apart from his motor cycle having been set on fire.

(3) As far as Petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl. O.P. No. 599/93 are concerned, they are stated to have beaten the deceased with sticks, causing simple hurt Fourth Petitioner in the said petition is not stated to have attacked the deceased at all, though he was armed with an aruval. He had caused simple hurt to witness Govindarajan. As far as the first Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 539/93 (Kennady) is concerned, he is alleged to have beaten on the head of the deceased with a stick, which is stated to be a fatal injury. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the first Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 539/93 on bail, in the event of his arrest. As far as he is concerned Crl. O.P. No. 539/93 shall stand dismissed.

Petitioners 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. No. 539/93 shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest, on each one of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, and on further condition that they shall reside at Madras and report daily at 6.00 P.M. at the law College Police Station, until further orders.

As far as the Petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 596/93 is concerned, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 2000/ - (Rupees Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and on further condition that he shall reside at Madras and report daily at 6:00 p.m. at the Law College Police Station, until further orders These two petitions are ordered as indicated above.

Certified copy of the order, extracted above, has been produced before me by Mr. G.R. Edmund to show for the limited purpose, the stand of the prosecution as on 13.1.1993. The above extracted order of the learned single Judge of this Court would clearly reveal that the Petitioner, herein had no hand at all in the alleged occurrence nor was attributed with any specific overt act or was alleged to have used any lethal weapon at any point of time. It is significant to note that the Respondent-Police had not even averred during the time of the above order that the Petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. As I have pointed out earlier, even the two injured witnesses, by name Balamurugan and Govindan, though had been treated at the Government Hospital immediately after the alleged occurrence, had not claimed or attributed anything as against the Petitioner and the learned single Judge of this Court has also adverted to the said facts and for the reasonings, as above, by order dated 13.1.1993, granted bail to the Petitioner, however with conditions. A perusal of the same does not disclose any specific overt act to the Petitioner or even his presence at the place of occurrence at that time or his participation in the alleged occurrence. The stand adopted by the prosecution immediately after the occurrence was totally different, but significantly, it was changed subsequently into the present version. It is, therefore, under these circumstances, I am able to identify a good reason and force in the contentions raised by Mr. G.R. Edmund, learned Counsel for and on behalf of the Petitioner.

That apart, the copy of the accident register given to the deceased Balamurugan on the evening of the date of occurrence itself would show that he was conscious. The injured witness Govindan was admitted in the hospital during midnight, as evident from the wound certificate. It is thus identified that both the documents are placed and relied on by the prosecution due to virtual conflict of the subsequent version of the prosecution. It is pertinent at this stage to note that the case in Crime No. 2/93 was initiated by the revision Petitioner herein alleging that at or about the same time on the date of occurrence, his house which is situated in a different place was attacked and ransacked by the prosecution witnesses and considerable damage was caused by the witness Yesurathinam and his two sons along with others. However, the Respondent-police after a long time has referred the matter as undetected. A casual perusal of the autopsy certificate along with the medical certificate above referred to would reveal that the alleged specific overt act against the revision Petitioner that he has cut the deceased Balamurugan upon his head several times is manifestly false and clearly an improvement subsequently made with a view to rope in the Petitioner in the instant case, for the very reasoning that the nature and description of the injuries noted by the medicos, more in numbers, would show the inherent disqualification of the prosecution case to a possible suspicion. The medical certificate above referred to manifestly conflicts with the version of the so called ocular witness and the first information report in this case. The Court below has observed that the effect of the discrepency and contradiction could be traced only after the trial. However, the embellishment or the different version - totally different from the earlier one by the prosecution - may not be allowed to compete with the concept of mere discrepancy or contradiction. There is a vital and inherent change in the stand of the prosecution subsequently from that of the earlier version which does not reflect the very involvement of the Petitioner, not only with reference to his presence, but also with reference to his overt act or identity. The very fact that the Petitioner, his men and the prosecution witnesses are all arch rivals and there exists a prolonged enmity between themselves is note-worthy at this juncture. That being so, one could comprehend the roping in of the Petitioner herein in the present case by the prosecution after his house was attacked, damaged and ransacked at or about the same time by the prosecution party which cannot at all be ruled out and for all the reasonings given above, I am not inclined to give any weight or legal credence to the contentions made on behalf of the Respondent by the Government Advocate. Having thus seen the entire case records of the instant case and the rival contentions made on behalf of the Bar for the respective parties, I am of the firm and constrained view that the revision Petitioner is roped in subsequently by the prosecution party in the instant case attributing him with some specific overt acts which might have not happened as evident from the original stand taken by the prosecution at the earliest point of time as referred to above and that none of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the deceased Balamurugan who died due to homicidal violence or other injured person-witness Govindan who naturally died subsequently had not claimed anything against the Petitioner herein, but, however, they for the reasons obviously known to themselves have roped in the Petitioner subsequently.

In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 404, following the ratio held in earlier decisions in Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Another, and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

Also it is wrong to say that at the state of framing charges the Court cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. The order framing a charge affects a person''s liberty substantially and therefore, it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial.

While dealing with the scope of Section 482 of the Code, the Supreme Court in Madhava Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. 1988 S.C.C. (Crl) 234 had the occasion to observe the following which I have quoted for the purpose of its relevancy to the instant case:

When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

The underlying theme clearly pronounced by the Apex Court would point out that when the proximity of any conviction of a person after a full trial is bleak and too remote, on the fact of the record, on the request of such a person, the Court must not close its eyes blindly, but, however, the Court is bound to look into the existence of the prima facie case and when the very case itself is lingering for its very base and cannot be accepted by a Court of Law, while evaluating the sequence of materials and documents placed by the prosecution, in exercise of the ample power provided u/s 227 of the Code, the person-accused can be discharged. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs like this:

If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Thus, it has become imperative for a Judge to consider and evaluate the materials placed before him and the records of the case with every document and so on with the hearing of the accused as well as the prosecution which show that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against any person and then, he shall discharge the accused by giving reasons for doing so. Following the legal ratio pronounced by the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, I have had occasions previously in similar cases to observe that it is not a matter of routine or a matter of fancy for a citizen of this country to stand on a criminal trial to get his innocence proved when there are inherent laches or total conflicts in the Prosecution case and it appears manifestly, while importing the above settled principles of law to the facts of the instant case, for the reasonings given above, in the matrix of the whole matter identified, I am of the clear view that though a specific request was made by and on behalf of the Revision Petitioner before the Court below, the Court below, while perusing the case records and evaluating the evidence, had totally overlooked the vital aspects which are primordial in nature with the result, the impugned order lacks every legal sanctity and propriety, for the very reasoning that there exists no prima facie case or ground even to proceed against the first accused who is the revision Petitioner herein and if the whole matter was looked in its proper angle, he should have been discharged already.

Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a catena of case-laws, Viz., (1 )State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agarwalla 1996 S.C.C. (Cri) 628; (2) Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari 1990 S.C.C. (Cri) 194; and (3) Miss Radha Bai Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its chief Secretary and others, . With great respect to the learned Government Advocate for having taken so much of pain in relying upon the above case laws, I can say without hesitation that the ratio decided in the above cases does not at all render any help to improve the Prosecution case any more, for the very reasoning that not only the facts of those cases are not similar or identical in nature, but also the scope and object made available under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited, but, however, wider in exercising the inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code. This being the reason, I have not looked into the facts of the instant case only for the mere inadequacy of the evidence which leads to premature assessment of the case quite attributing to any wrong premises as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. I am put on an extra caution while exercising my revisional jurisdiction in the instant case. The very chance of conviction against the first accused has become too remote and very bleak, since I have already observed that the Revision has been clearly roped in subsequently, this would project a major challenge for the Prosecution and that has been manifestly made clear. In State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Sudershan Chakkar and another, the very legal synthesis propagated and ruled by the Apex Court is that while a Court exercising its power at the stage of framing of charges, must confine its attention only to the documents placed and relied on by the prosecution u/s 173(1)(b) of the Code and not elsewhere. Basing upon the above theme, having looked into the facts of the instant case with reference to the case records in its entirety in the light of the rival contentions made by the Bar for respective parties, I am inclined to say that there exists no prima facie case even to frame charges against the first accused who is the revision Petitioner and to this extent, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is vitiated with every illegality and impropriety. Accordingly, it is liable to be set aside and the first accused is hereby liable to be discharged of all the charges framed against him.

In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings, findings and various observations, the revision succeeds and it is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 408 of 1995 in S.C. No. 571 of 1994 dated 6.7.1995 is hereby set aside and the Revision Petitioner viz., the first accused by name, Thangamani alone is discharged.