PETCHIMUTHU @ PAYASAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.140 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli, having been taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST(POA) Act 1989 altered into 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that there are totally nine accused, in which, the petitioner was arrayed as A4. The respondent police after investigation, filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance as S.C.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Tirunelveli. Since the petitioner went to Karnataka for his survival, he could not attend the trial and hence, the case was split up and the trial was proceeded against other accused. After completion of the full fledged trial, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Tirunelveli has acquitted the said accused persons in S.C.No.62 of 2013 by Judgment, dated11.11.2016 on the ground that the prosecution has not been proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case against the petitioner is now pending as S.C.No.140 of 2015.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent completed the investigation and filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.62 of 2013 and thereafter, other accused appeared before the trial Court and conducted the case, which was also ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 11.11.2016. Since, the petitioner/A4 went to Karnataka and non bailable warrant has been issued as against him and also, since the same was unable to execute the warrant issued against the petitioner, the trial Court split up the case insofar as A4/the petitioner is concerned in S.C. No.140 of 2015 and it is now pending. The trial Court acquitted the other accused on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt.