- (1.) THE petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10, has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, dated 12.10.2010 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 seeking for the relief of discharge.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been arrayed as A10 and he is the lessee of the lodge, namely, "Devi Lodge", Gingee. THE occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on the night of 27.06.2007 at room No.28 of the said lodge. On that day, a male and a female came to the said lodge and they have taken the room and ultimately the deceased was found lying dead in the said room of the above said lodge. After knowing the said incident, the petitioner/A10 has preferred a complaint to the police on 29.06.2007 and on his complaint a First Information Report was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in this case implicating the petitioner as one of the accused as A10. THE petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 203 IPC and under Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC on the allegation that the petitioner has given false information about the occurrence and he has caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence to screen the offender of murder and rape levelled against A1 to A7. The petitioner, being aggrieved against filing of the charge sheet implicating him as one of the accused, preferred a discharge petition before the learned trial Judge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that the ingredients of Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC and 203 are not at all attracted and there is no material available on record to make out a prima facie case for the alleged offences against him. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said discharge petition and the said order is under challenge in this revision. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would vehemently contend that there is no material available on record to make out a prima facie case against the accused in order to attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 201, 203 r/w 302 IPC. It is contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he is only a lessee of the lodge in which, the victim as well as the accused stayed together. It is further contended that soonafter knowing the unnatural death of the deceased, the revision petitioner has preferred a complaint on 29.06.2007 narrating the sequence of events, namely, the allotment of a room in the said lodge to one male and a female, the room was found locked till 29.06.2007 and on that ground, the said room was opened with a duplicate key and found that the deceased lying dead in the bath room and the bloodstains were found in the said room. It is contended that the petitioner has not suppressed or concealed or caused disappearance of any evidence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the prosecution has placed reliance only on the alleged confession said to have been given by A1 and A2 before the police and such evidence is inadmissible and on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, the petitioner cannot be implicated in this case.
(3.) PER contra, Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is the lessee of the lodge, wherein, the deceased was found dead in a room. It is contended that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.06.2007 itself, but the revision petitioner/A10 has preferred the complaint only on 29.06.2007 and he has not given any explanation for the delay in giving report to the police. It is further contended that the confession given by A1 and A2 discloses that the revision petitioner has given a false information and caused disappearance of the material evidence. The learned Government Advocate would proceed to contend that even the strong suspicion is enough to frame charge against the accused. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge.;