- (1.) THIS is a petition under S.482, Crl. P.C., by the four petitioners who are accused 1 to 4 in P.R.C. No. 14 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruvadanai. All the four petitioners were charge-sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town in Crime No. 115 of 1984 on the file of the Devakottai Taluk Police Station, for offences under Ss.302 and 201 read with S.34, I.P.C. They had been committed to take their trial for the said offences before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. At that stage, they have come forward with this petition to quash the committal.
(2.) PETITIONERS 3 and 4 are sisters and their husbands who are said to be brothers are stated to be employed in Malaysia and petitioners 1 and 2 are alleged to be doing agricultural work in the lands belonging to the petitioners 3 and 4. The deceased in this case, one Dhanam, young girl of about 18 years, unmarried, was the daughter of one Subramaniam, step-brother of the husbands of petitioners 3 and 4. She was working in the house of petitioners 3 and 4, and according to the prosecution, she became aware of the immoral activities of petitioners 3 and 4 and since the husband of the third petitioner had come home during the month of January 1984, petitioners 3 and 4 apprehended that she might divulge their activities to the husband of the third petitioner and so they made up their mind to do away with the said Dhanam. Further, according to the prosecution, at about 1.30 a.m. on 19th January, 1984, one Srinivasan, son of Pichai, Karuppan, son of Kuppan, Kattappan son of Nachiappan, all belonging to Periyakarai village in Devakottai taluk. Who happened to be near about the house of one Vadivelu, the younger brother of petitioners 3 and 4, to catch mice, after catching mice, were coming near that place at Panangattanvayal and near the old rice mill there, they had spread the net and were seated there and at that time from the house of Vadivelu, they heard a groaning noise and after some time, they saw all the four petitioners in front of the house of the said Vadivelu and a little later they heard the noise and the voices heard by them were female voices and all the petitioners were carrying a corpse towards the place where the three persons were sitting and according to them, they were hiding themselves in Kattu Karuvelu and those four persons could not notice them and the four petitioners took the corpse and put it in the Oorani and returned to their house. Those three persons also returned to their houses and on the next morning, the four petitioners took the dead body of Dhanam and had placed the same near the Oorani, but they did not inform about it to any one out of fear. Out of three persons, Srinivasan son of Pichai, is shown to have given the report to the police on 29th June, 1984 and a reading of the Complaint would disclose that on that day, namely, 26th June, 1984, persons belonging to Periyakarai, Panangattanvayal and Kongivayal had gathered and asked about the truth of the occurrence and accordingly, he came forward to give that information to the police. On the basis of the said information given by the said Srinivasan, the case had been registered and investigation had been taken up and charge sheet had been filed. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to point out that earlier there was a case registered on the file of the very same Devakot-tai Taluk Police Station in first information report No. 29 of 1984 dated 28th February, 1984 where under Subramaniam, the father of deceased Dhanam, and nineteen others were charged for the offence under S.176,I.P.C., alleging that on 19th January, 1984 at about 6 a.m., at Panangattanvayal village, the first accused Subramaniam, father of the said Dhanam, without giving information to the police about the drowning of Dhanam in the Oorani, joining with others, had cremated the body of Dhanam and accordingly they had committed the offence punishable under S.176. I.P.C., and it was submitted before me that the said Subramaniam, father of Dhanam, pleaded guilty to the charge and he was found guilty of the said offence and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25 in S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984 by the learned Judicial II class Magistrate, Tiruvadanai. The case against others is said to be pending since they are contesting. It is also to be noted that the said S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984 arose on the basis of an anonymous petition shown to have been sent by some �good persons� of the village. It appears that on 21st January, 1984, the Sub Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, had received the said anonymous petition wherein it had been alleged that on 19th January, 1984, Thursday, at about 7 a.m. a body was found floating in the oorani in Panangat-tuvayal and people had come to know about it and it was the body of Dhanam, aged about 18, and the said Dhanam was working in the house of one Main of Malaysia, husband of the third petitioner herein, and because of the poor circumstances, she was so working and stayed in the house of third petitioner and it had been further alleged in that petition that the third petitioner by hiring some others had committed the murder and it was not a case of suicide. The said murder had been committed with the active assistance of one Vedamuthan of Kallikudi, the petitioner No. 2, and further according to the said petition, the occurrence had taken place in the new house that was being constructed behind the house of the third petitioner and death had been caused by trampling upon the neck and the body had been disposed of in the oorani at about 3 a.m., and on the next morning, in the presence of elders of the village, the body had been taken and stating that it was a case of suicide, the body was cremated. Further, according to the said petition, the elders of the village had been influenced with money and arrack and the persons of good behaviour could not do anything and such of those persons were also away from the village. The reason for the said murder, according to the petition, was the apprehension of the third petitioner about the divulging her immoral conduct to her husband who had come then from Malaysia, by the deceased Dhanam. Copies of the said petition are shown to have been marked to the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Inspector-General of Police, the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai and the Revenue Divisional Officer of Devakottai one Krishnas-wami, Inspector of Devakottai Taluk Police Station is said to have taken up the investigation and according to the said investigation, the deceased who had gone to oorani to take water at about 6 A.M. on 19.1.1984 drowned in the oorani and the father of the deceased or the nineteen others who are charged, without giving any information to the police, cremated her body. While that was so, subsequently on 29.6.1984, the present case had been registered and after investigation, the petitioners are shown to have been committed to take their trial.
(3.) THE petitioners have come forward with several contentions stating that the version put forward by the three witnesses shown as P.Ws.l to 3 is highly unbelievable and unnatural and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are all from a different village known as Periakarai and not from Panangattanvayal village and even in the first information report shown to have been given by Srinivasan, there is no mention about the names of the villages from the three villages who had convened a meeting on 29,6.1984 for enquiring into the real cause of death of deceased Dhanam. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a mystery as to how those so-called elders happened to convene a meeting for the said purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no mention whatsoever in the charge-sheet as to who were the persons who had convened the meeting and in the charge-sheet, no witness has been cited as such to speak about the convening of such meeting and about P.W.1 and others coming forward at a late stage to speak the truth, if at all it had been convened in such manner. It is also contended that in the first place, even according to the prosecution, when the body had been cremated, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner or anybody else for that matter, committed the murder of the said Dhanam and having regard to the earlier charge-sheet against the father of the deceased, Dhanam and others on the allegation that Dhanam had drowned in the Oorani and without informing the police, her body was cremated, the prosecution has come forward with the charge under Ss.302 and 201,I.P.C., without any basis. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier case during investigation, the village munsif of Panangattuvayal had been shown to have been examined and according to him though he happened to the relevant date, namely, 19th January, 1984, he had come to know about the occurrence and the father of deceased Dhanam had informed him that Dhanam was suffering from fits and she was drowned in the oorani and death had occurred and to that effect he had made an entry in the birth and death register and had also taken the signature of the father of the deceased girl. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that petitioners 1 and 2 have been shown as witnesses in S.T.C. No 324 of 1984 and petitioners 3 and 4 have been neither shown as accused or as witnesses in that case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that all the three witnesses shown as P.Ws. 1 to 3 would consistently say as if out of fear they did not inform any one else about what they had seen the previous night and yet they had chosen to come forward to say what they had seen long after five months. It was also pointed out that they have also stated that even though police visited the village on 27.1.1984 itself, they did not inform the matter even to the police. In this connection, learned counsel also pointed out hat their explanation now on the ground of fear they did inform cannot at all be countenanced by Courts and the Courts cannot take their evidence into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that though during the relevant time the husband of the third petitioner was shown to have been present very much in the village, he had not been examined and likewise, Vadivelu in whose house P. Ws.1 to 3 have heard or shown to have been heard the groaning noise had not been examined. It is to be pointed out that Subramaniam, father of the deceased is residing in Kottaivayal and there is no indication, whatsoever through whom he had come to know about his daughter�s corpse being found floating on the morning of 19th January, 1984 in the village oorani and at what time he came to the village. In this connection, it may also be pointed out as to whether a father, who had lost his daughter in such manner, if at all he had seen the body of his daughter floating in the Oorani and taken from the Oorani, would keep quite if there had been any suspicion regarding her death. There had been no attempt during investigation in his case to show that the deceased Dhanam was not suffering from fits to eliminate the reason shown to have been given by the father to the village munsif for making an entry in the death register. It is also to be pointed out that one Periasami Ambalam of Panangattanvayal is stated to have come forward with a version during investigation that on 31.1.1984, the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police Station, visited the village and at that time, it was represented that action should be taken against the petitioners for which the Inspector is shown to have stated that since the body had been cremated and as there is no proof regarding the offence, no action could be taken against them. When such is the version put forward and having regard to the fact that in the month of March, 1984 (8th March, 1984) , the Taluk Inspector having chosen to prosecute the father as well as nineteen others for the offence under 5. 176, I.P.C., it is not known as to how the prosecution has come forward with this case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that witnesses, Karuppiah and Gnanasambandam, shown as P.Ws. 4 and 5 in the charge sheet, and who have also come forward stating that they had heard the noise from the place near the house of Vadivelu, had simply kept quiet even after coming to know that the body that was taken, happened to be the body of the deceased. In this connection, it has to be pointed out that the said Karuppiah has also come forward with the version during investigation that he represented to the three villagers that they must convene a meeting and should enquire the matter. While he has come forward to state in such manner, he has not further stated that as to who were all the person who assembled in such manner and it will be significant to point out that no mention had been made that P.W.1 or for that purpose, P.Ws.2 and 3 in the said meeting, came forward to disclose the truth and in pursuance of the same, P.W.1 had been asked to give information to the police. It was also pointed out that P.W.5 was also charge-sheeted in S.T.C. No. 324 of 1984, but now as a witness in this case, he is shown to have come forward with a version during investigation as if he had asked one Swaminathan of that village to report the matter to the police, and that he had informed what he had seen during night to Swaminathan and he went to Devakotai to purchase vegetables, but when he returned at about 12 noon, and enquired Swaminathan, he came to know that four petitioners had taken out the corpse and cremated the body.;