Madras High Court: In a criminal revision filed under Section read with Section of (‘CrPC’) to set aside the partially dismissed portion of the common order passed by the Sessions Judge, P.Velmurugan, J., while setting aside the impugned order, except with respect to Natarjan, Manager, Kodanadu, who was permitted to be examined as a defense side witness, directed the Sessions Judge to provide the accused persons an opportunity to examine former Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala among others as witnesses.
Background:
The prosecution’s case is that the accused conspired to trespass into the Kodanadu Estate Bungalow of former Chief Minister Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, located in the Nilgiris District. On 23-04-2017, pursuant to this conspiracy, the accused and their associates formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed onto the premises armed with deadly weapons, committed dacoity, and murdered one watchman, while causing multiple injuries to another watchman. After committing the offence, the group fled the scene in two cars. Based on a complaint from the watchman, the police registered a case under Sections , , , and of the . After the investigation, a final report was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court in which is currently pending trial.
Pending trial, the accused 1 filed a petition seeking permission to examine witnesses 1 to 9. Similarly, the accused 3, 5, and 8 filed another petition for the same purpose. Both petitions were heard by the Sessions Judge, who partly allowed both petitions by an order dated 30-04-2021. Challenging the order, the accused 3, 5, and 8 have now filed the present revision case.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the request of the accused persons to examine the witnesses was rejected on the grounds of lack of relevancy, vexatiousness, and failure to provide valid reasons.
Further, the Court noted that the first witness sought to be examined by the accused persons on the defense side is Edappadi K. Palanisami, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. s vexatious and filed without the necessary materials.
The Court reiterated that under Section of , the Court must determine whether the accused persons have shown sufficient cause and relevancy to examine a defense witness. It mandates that the accused be given an opportunity to present their defense and examine witnesses.
The Court observed that several untoward incidents occurred after the crime took place. For example, one of the accused died five days after the incident, another accused reportedly met with an accident, and a person who had worked at the bungalow later committed suicide. The accused persons have requested permission to examine Mr. Edappadi K. Palanisami, believing his testimony is crucial to uncovering the truth.
The Court emphasized that it is crucial for the true facts of the case to be brought to light in the pursuit of justice. Denying both the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to present their cases would violate fundamental legal principles. A fair trial, which ensures both parties have a reasonable opportunity to be heard, is vital to the integrity of the justice system. Any process that undermines this right, hampers the pursuit of truth. Therefore, all proceedings must be conducted with fairness and due process. It is a well-established legal principle that failure to provide a fair hearing to either the accused or the prosecution violates even the minimum standards of due process.
The Court further observed that the accused persons have presented valid reasons for seeking to examine Edappadi K. Palanisami as a defense witness. This examination is vital for a comprehensive evaluation of the case and will allow the court to consider both the prosecution’s evidence and the defense’s arguments in full. Granting this request will facilitate a deeper understanding of the matter, leading to a just outcome. Therefore, as per the Court the application filed by the accused persons cannot be deemed vexatious.
The Court noted that the next witnesses sought to be examined were V.K. Sasikala Natarajan, .Elavarasi, and N.V. Sudhakaran. The Sessions Judge held that these individuals had no title or interest over the Kodanad Estate property and, thus, dismissed the petition to examine them as defense witnesses.
The Court stated that this case is not a civil dispute but a criminal matter involving an incident at the bungalow owned by Dr. J. Selvi Jayalalithaa, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. In such a case, it is the court’s duty to thoroughly examine all aspects and seek any information that might uncover the truth. Each case must be approached with an open mind, considering all documents or witnesses that may support the case. It was revealed that upon entering the bungalow, one would pass through the office room and proceed upstairs, where the Chief Minister’s room was on the right, and Sasikala Natarajan’s room was on the left. This testimony indicates Sasikala’s close association with the bungalow, making it unjust to dismiss her examination as a defense witness as vexatious.
The Court further noted that in criminal cases, especially those involving serious crimes like murder, circumstantial evidence can be crucial when direct evidence is not available.
The Court said that in the present case, one watchman was killed, an accused died, another accused was attacked but managed to escape, while his wife and daughter died, and a person who worked at the bungalow also passed away. Given the suspicions surrounding these events, the examination of Elavarasi and N.V. Sudhakaran cannot be regarded as vexatious. Under Section of , the accused must be given an opportunity to present their defense and examine witnesses. The accused persons have provided sufficient reasons to examine Sasikala Natarajan, Elavarasi, and N.V. Sudhakaran as defense witnesses. This will assist in a proper evaluation of the case and allow the court to fully consider both the prosecution’s evidence and the defense’s position. Therefore, the accused’s application cannot be dismissed as vexatious.
While noting that the next individuals sought to be examined on the defense side were IAS officer Shankar, IPS officer Murali Rambah, Sajeevan and Sunil, State Organizers, Gudalur Post, The Nilgiris, the Court said that allowing the petition to examine them, will assist the Court in properly appreciating the prosecution evidence and substantiating the defense.
Thus, the Court directed the Sessions Judge to complete the trial in accordance with the law, ensuring that both parties are given an opportunity to present their case. If the prosecution requires the examination of additional witnesses based on further investigation, the trial should proceed accordingly. Once the prosecution’s examination of witnesses is concluded, the accused persons must be given an opportunity to examine the abovementioned eight witnesses.
[Deepu v State, Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2021, decided on 06-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: I.Romeo Roy Alfred
For Respondents: S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .