https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1724660114970595451?t=dloQQ_HvC8b5cdozE6XnyQ&s=08 Direction to cbi HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.22169 of 2016. அதிரடி உத்தரவு full order

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.04.2023
DELIVERED ON : 17.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.22169 of 2016
1. R.Jeyakumar Jothi
2. T.Subramanian @ Raja
3. R.Jeyaram Jothi
4. S.Ramesh
5. M.Rengaiah : Petitioners
v.
1.The Home Secretary,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Post Box No.601,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Joint Director,
Central Bureu of Investigation,
III Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tirunelveli.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli.
6.Marirajan,
Inspector of Police,
CBCID,
Madurai.
7.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
8.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct fresh investigation in Crime No.8 of 2008 on the file of the fourth respondent and consequently, directing the respondents 1, 2 & 6 to pay compensation of Rs.10 Crore to each of the petitioners and to provide
Government Job to the petitioners 1, 3 & 4.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil for M/s.Waraon & Sai Rams
For Respondents : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram,
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.M.Siddhardhan,
Additional Government Pleader for RR.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Mr.N.Mohideen Basha for R.3
Mr.M.E.Ilango for R.6
*****
ORDER
The petitioners, claiming to be the victims of wrongful prosecution in respect of a case in Crime No.8 of 2008 on the file of the fourth respondent, have filed this writ petition seeking de-nova investigation by the third respondent and compensation for the malicious prosecution.
2.The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:-
2.1.The petitioners were on a pilgrimage to Tripathi travelling in the Nagarkovil – Tripathy – Mumbai Express bearing Train No.6335 on 13.01.2008 in a reserved compartment S.10 with valid reservation tickets. A young man, named as Rajesh Prabhu who is a native of Madurai, had boarded the train at Nagarkovil at S.9 Coach with an unreserved ticket and waited in S10 Coach for the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) seeking allotment of a berth, which is said to have been objected by the petitioners / accused, that, being an unreserved passenger, the said Rajesh Prabu cannot wait in the reserved coach. On course of that, there was a quarrel and the petitioners were intimidated by Rajesh Prabu that they cannot even cross Madurai Junction. With this notice, all the petitioners said to have attacked the deceased and caused fatal injuries. The dead body of Rajesh Prabhu was found by one unknown passenger in a pool of blood and somebody pulled the train when the train just departed from Tirunelveli Junction. The train was taken back to Tirunelveli Junction and on the complaint of the TTE, the Railway Police, Tirunelveli, registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2.2.The investigation in this case was conducted by four Officers. The initial investigation was conducted by the then Inspector of Police, Railway Police Force [PW44] from 13.01.2008 to 22.04.2008. The first investigation officer has examined totally 195 witnesses and at that stage, the father of the deceased has sent a representation to the then Director General of Police on 29.03.2008 for changing the investigation and also filed an application before this Court in Crl.OP.(MD)No.3938 of 2008 for transferring the case in Crime No.8 of 2008 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tirunelveli, to any other special investigating agency. This Court, by order dated 09.04.2008, has disposed that application with a direction to the respondent therein to consider his representation.
2.3.Accordingly, the Director General of Police vide his proceedings dated 23.04.2008 has directed to transfer the investigation from the file of the Railway Police, Tirunelveli to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli has conducted the further investigation in Crime No.8 of 2008. The second investigation officer conducted the investigation from 09.07.2008 to
22.04.2009 and he went on medical leave on 22.04.2009. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (in-charge), Tirunelveli has proceeded with the investigation. While so, the case was again transferred to CBCID, Madurai and entrusted with the sixth respondent / Marirajan, the then
Inspector of Police, CBCID at Madurai on 01.10.2009, by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai.
2.4.The sixth respondent / the fourth investigation officer has proceeded with the further investigation from 08.10.2009 and he has filed his final report on 26.04.2010 fixing the petitioners, the co-passengers, as accused that due to the dispute arose between them on account of reservation, the petitioners have killed the deceased Rajesh Prabhu. This final report is based on the statements of PWs.18, 19 and 20, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident.
2.5.PW18, a Head Constable working in Railway Police Station,
Nagarkovil, is said to have travelled from Nagarkovil to Madurai in Coach No.S10 on the date of occurrence and witnessed the incident. PW19 is the A/C Coach Attendar working at Nagarkovil Railway Station and he was not on duty and he was travelling on the same coach from Nagarkovil to Madurai for the purpose of visiting his mother and sister. PW20, a Tea Stall owner who is running a Tea Stall at Madurai, has went to the neighboring State Kerala to procure tea powder for his tea shop and while returning to Madurai, he was also travelling in S9 Coach on the date of occurrence and said to have witnessed the incident.
2.6.However, these witnesses said to be the eyewitnesses did not state that they have seen the incident neither before the first investigation officer nor before the second investigation officer. However, in their statements recorded on 15.02.2011 by the fourth investigation officer [R.6], after a period of two years from the date occurrence, they claim that they have witnessed the occurrence in a close proximity.
2.7.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and taken up for trial by the Additional District Sessions Court / Fast Track Court. No.1, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.180 of 2010. The trial Court, by order dated 19.11.2011, acquitted the accused / petitioners from the charges levelled against them, on the main ground that these three witnesses [PW18, PW19 and PW20] were planted by the fourth investigation officer / sixth respondent after two years, either to help the real accused or to close the investigation. An attempt was made to prefer an appeal as against the order of acquittal, but the Government has rejected the request vide G.O.(Ms)No.882, Home (Courts 7) Department, dated 16.11.2012.
2.8.Thereafter, the father of the deceased [PW23] has filed an appeal in
Crl.A(MD)No.124 of 2013 as against the order passed by the trial Court. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by order dated 01.04.2016.
Pending this appeal, the petitioners have preferred a writ petition before this Court in WP.(MD)No.6444 of 2014 for a fresh investigation and for a compensation of 10 Crore each. Considering the pendency of the Crl.A(MD)No.124 of 2013 filed as against the judgment of the trial Court, this Court, by order dated 03.11.2015, disposed the said writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the disposal of Crl.A(MD).No.124 of 2013. Therefore, this present writ petition is filed after the dismissal of the appeal filed as against the acquittal in Crl.A(MD)No.124 of 2013.
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners:-
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contest that the fourth investigation officer / sixth respondent herein, in order to safeguard the real accused, has planted the eyewitnesses, PWs.18, 19 and 20, as against these innocent petitioners. The investigation officer has abused his power conferred upon him and filed a false final report as against these petitioners deliberately with an intent to safeguard the real accused. According to him, the deceased Rajesh Prabhu was the cousin of one Ravindran, an influential and powerful politician of the then ruling party of the State Government and the deceased was having an illegal intimacy with the wife of said Ravindran. They were about to get married and for that purpose, the deceased who was working as a Software Engineer in a Private Company in Gujarat, was proceeding to Madurai and at that point of time, he was murdered in between Nagarkovil and Tirunelveli in the running train.
4.Admittedly, the deceased was found in a pool of blood adjacent to berth No.15 in S.9 Coach. He said to have boarded the train with an unreserved ticked and the TTE allotted him with berth No.1 at S.9 Coach. The petitioners were travelling in S.10 Coach. The deceased Rajesh Prabhu said to have initially boarded in S.10 Coach and sit near the petitioners’ berth and the petitioners said to have objected that he cannot travel in the reserved coach with open ticket. However, some other passengers from North India were also travelling in S.10 Coach, who were on the waiting list in A/C Coach and waiting for their confirmation. Almost, the entire S.10 Coach was vacant apart from the petitioners and the other North Indian passengers. While so, the petitioners are added as accused as if they raised objections to the deceased to sit in S.10 Coach and on account of that, the offence was committed.
5.The investigation by the first investigation officer was went in the right direction and when the investigation officer was about to reach the main accused, the investigation was transferred from the file of Railway Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli. He has also zero down the accused and at that juncture, he was made to go on medical leave.
Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted with the sixth respondent to divert the investigation and the same was successfully made by him.
6.The sixth respondent has conveniently omitted the investigations conducted by the Railway Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli and the material objects and statements collected by them and filed his final report on 26.04.2010 in a vague manner as against the petitioners, as if there was a quarrel in a vacant compartment for reservation and on that course, the petitioners brutally attacked the deceased and caused the death with 14 fatal injuries. Not even a person with a low IQ will accept the theory of the investigation officer / sixth respondent and the trail Court, while acquitting the petitioners, has condemned the investigation officer / sixth respondent that the witnesses PW18, PW19 and PW20 are planted by the investigation officer R6.
7.Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first petitioner had got a job opportunity at London and because of his false implication in this case, he lost his job opportunity and livelihood. The daughter of the fifth petitioner got married on 27.01.2010. On the same day, in the night, the petitioners were arrested by the sixth respondent as if they have committed murder. Therefore, the reputation of their family with the bridegroom family and other relatives was damaged and the entire family was collapsed. The damages caused to the family in view of their false implication in the criminal case cannot be compensated on money, however, they are fixing the quantum for compensation as Rs.10 Crore each.
Submissions made on behalf of the Respondents:-
8.Learned Advocate General oppose the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, that the issue having complicated question of facts cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. He has referred the judgment of the trail Court and also the decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A(MD).No.124 of 2013 and submitted that both the Courts have taken the decision by applying the principles of benefit of doubt and therefore, it cannot be construed that the investigation conducted by the investigation officer as a perfunctory one.
9.He has also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Nandakumar Krishnarao Navgire v. Jananath Laxman Kushalkar and
Others [(1998) 2 SCC 355] and Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 180]. He has also relied on the decisions of various High Courts across the country in Channappa and
Another v. Sivarudrappa [1961 SCC Online Kar 4]; Sapna and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [CWP-4336-2017]; Ajeet v. State of Haryana and Others [CWP No.3749 of 2016, dated 05.04.2016]; and Venkittu Achari
v. C.Vaithyanathan [2000 (3) CTC 37].
10.Mr.M.E.Elango, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that the investigation officer [R6] has conducted the investigation in a proper manner and just because the evidence adduced by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by the trail Court, the entire investigation cannot be construed as a defective one and there cannot be any negative presumption as against the Government Servant under Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The sixth respondent, investigating officer, is the one of the best officers in the State of Tamil Nadu and he has received several awards for his effective investigations in various sensitive cases, including the award of “Union Home Minister’s Medal for Excellent Investigation for the year 2019”. He has also furnished the list of awards received by the sixth respondent before this Court.
11.The learned Counsel has also raised the issues on maintainability.
For this contention, he has relied on the judgments of this Court in D.Arun v.
P.Subramani [2016 SCC Online Mad 14219]; Muthuswamy v. Siddhan and Others [2005-2-L.W.229]; R.Arun Kumar v. State and Others [W.P.No.6262 of 2012, dated 10.11.2021] and K.Ratha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [W.P.(MD)No.13384 of 2012, dated 12.09.2022].
12.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
13.Admittedly, this is a case of murder and the deceased was found with
14 fatal injuries in a moving train. Initially, the investigation was done by the Railway Police, Tirunelveli and based on the order of this Court dated 09.04.2008, the investigation was transferred to CBCID, Tirunelveli and further transferred to CBCID, Madurai. The investigation was entrusted with the sixth respondent / then Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai, by the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, vide his proceedings dated 01.10.2009. The sixth respondent has conducted the further investigation and found that these petitioners are the accused and filed the final report on 26.04.2010. However, the trial Court, after conducting trial, has acquitted all the accused / petitioners by strongly observing that the witnesses PW18, PW19 and PW20, relied on by the sixth respondent for fixing the petitioners as accused, are planted witnesses, planted by the investigation officer / sixth respondent.
14.The petitioners were arrayed as accused in a murder case. They have been acquitted by the trial Court and the appeal against acquittal filed before this Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, these petitioners have filed this petition seeking compensation and also for re-investigation. It is very strange that the accused, after acquittal from the trial Court as well as from this Court, have come forward with an application for reinvestigation of the case. I have never seen such petition ever before.
15.The prosecution case is that the petitioners have committed a murder of a fellow passenger in a moving train. The motive projected by the prosecution as against the petitioners for the commission of offence is that the petitioners objected the deceased to sit in a reserved compartment (S-10) and on account of that, there was a wordy quarrel, the deceased said to have intimidated the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners said to have committed the murder of a fellow passenger.
16.The undisputed facts which are available in this case and create a strong doubt on the motive, as projected by the prosecution, is as follows:-
16.1.The petitioners, as a family, were travelling in compartment S-10 on a pilgrimage from Nagercoil to Tirupathi. The train started at 04.30 am in the early morning and there was no passenger other than the petitioners and few other North Indians, who were waiting like the deceased for their confirmation of reservation. The deceased, an Engineering Graduate, who was working in Gujarat was returning to his native, Madurai. He, through Tirunanthapuram, came to Nagercoil and from there, he boarded the train with an unreserved ticket, kept his baggage in S-9 compartment, went to S-10
compartment to get a reservation from the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE), who was at S-10 compartment. Both S-9 and S-10 compartments were almost empty with 80 + 80 vacant seats.
16.2.The deceased, immediately after boarding the train, approached the TTE, obtained confirmation of birth by paying necessary reservation charges. Since the deceased approached the TTE in S-10 compartment, the TTE who was in S-10 compartment has allotted a seat in S-10 compartment initially and on the request of the deceased that he has kept his baggage in S-9 compartment, it was stricken off and it has been allotted in S-9 compartment. This is the statement of the Travelling Ticket Examiner before the first investigation officer and the second investigation officer.
16.3.However, R6 / the fourth investigation officer, who filed the final report, has invented a new theory after 2 ½ years from the date of occurrence that the accused objected the deceased to sit in the S-10 reserved compartment without any reservation and consequent to the quarrel in this issue, they murdered. It is not known how these petitioners were aware whether the deceased was travelling with reservation or not until the Ticket Examiner verify the same. The fact remains that the deceased got reservation of a birth from the TTE. But, by projecting this motive the petitioners, who were on a pilgrimage to Tirupathi, have been fixed as accused.
16.4.Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners were on pilgrimage and it is not known how a pilgrim was having a knife to commit murder in a moving train. The deceased was brutally murdered with 14 stab injuries. It is unheard of such an attack on any such sudden quarrel. Myself, as an Advocate, have conducted several murder cases and also dealt with several appeals against life imprisonment. I have never heard such brutal attack with 14 stab injuries on a sudden quarrel. The motive attributed by the prosecution for the commission of offence is flimsy and no prudent person can accept this theory of the prosecution for a brutal murder in a moving train due to a sudden quarrel.
16.5.The second investigation officer / the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, has narrowed down the investigation to an issue of adultery and at that point of time, the investigation was changed, another investigation officer was appointed as if the second investigation officer was on leave and it is not known how long this second investigation officer was on leave. Curiously, the second investigation officer / DSP, CBCID, who conducted the investigation for more than one year, has not been examined before the trial Court.
16.6.The investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, CBCID, Tirunelveli, was handed over to the Inspector of Police, Madurai / R6, when suspicion was on the relative of the deceased who is a powerful political person in Madurai.
16.7.As against the finding of the trial Court, though a proposal was made to file an appeal, the Government did not accept the same and rejected the report that this is not a fit case for appeal, vide G.O.(MS).No.882, Home (courts-7) Department dated 16.11.2012. However, the father of the deceased has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.124 of 2013 and the same has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 01.04.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition for compensation and also for a fresh investigation.
17.The petitioner’s case is that the sixth respondent has maliciously prosecuted them in order to safeguard the real accused. The respondents objected this writ petition on the ground of maintainability. Therefore, this
Court frames the following points for determination:-
1. Whether this petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether this Court can grant compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by invoking its extraordinary power or whether the civil Court alone has the jurisdiction?
3. Whether the trial Court acquitted the petitioners on the ground of benefit of doubt alone?
4. Whether the petitioners are maliciously prosecuted by the sixth respondent?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? and
6. Whether the facts of the case require further investigation by any other investigating agencies?
Point No.1 (Maintainability) :-
18.The incident took place on 13.01.2008. The Inspector of Railway Police conducted the investigation from 13.01.2008 to 22.04.2008.
Mr.Selvaraj, DSP, CBCID, Tirunelveli enquired into the matter for a period of 297 days from 15.05.2008 to 25.05.2008 and from 09.07.2008 to 22.04.2009. One Ms.Lalitha, DSP (in-charge), CBCID, Tirunelveli, enquired into the matter for a period of 210 days from 26.05.2008 to 08.07.2008 and from 23.04.2009 to 07.10.2009. The statements recorded by the earlier
investigation officers were not at all considered by R6 / Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai, who conducted the investigation for a period of 111 days from 08.10.2009 to 27.01.2010 and filed the final report.
19.The statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW8, PW9, PW12, PW18, PW19 & PW20 are contra to their earlier statements. R6 did not verify their statements and failed to find out the reasons for their new version. It appears R6 has taken advantage of the provision available u/s.162 Cr.P.C. and has recorded the statements of witnesses to his convenience to fix the petitioners as accused.
20.The petitioners were examined by the previous investigation officers as witnesses. They remained as witnesses for nearly two years till the investigation was taken over by R6. In fact, PW18, the Railway Police, has been cited as a direct witness only based on the statements of these petitioners. While so, on a flimsy ground, the petitioners were shown as accused after two years and that too, based on the contradictory statements of PWs.18 to 20. PW20 was inserted by R6 after two years as a eye-witness, but he was not available for the interrogation by the previous investigation officers. It was also found during the trial that PW20 is a close associate of one Ravindran, a Politician, against whom, the second investigation officer has narrowed down the motive aspect.
21.Though the trial Court has acquitted the accused on benefit of doubt, a clear finding has been made by the trial Court that the investigation officer / R6, in order to protect the real accused, has implicated the petitioners, innocent passengers, as accused. The case of the petitioners is also that they were implicated as accused in order to protect the real accused.
22.The investigation is the prerogative of the investigation agency. Not even the Court would interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation and Court would not issue any direction to the manner in which the investigation to be carried out, which would mean that from the lodging of the first information report till the filing of the final report, the right of investigation exclusively is vested with the investigation agency. Whoever high he may be, a victim of any crime has to depend upon the investigation agency. It is the responsibility of the State to protect the life and limb of every citizen. The affected victims must be ensured that they would get proper justice for the crime committed on them.
23.A fair justice can be done, only on the materials placed before the Court by the investigation agency. Therefore, the purpose of an investigation agency must be fair and proper, unbiased and honest. The duty of the Court is not only to protect the rights of an accused, but also to protect and render justice to the innocent victims. The responsibility of the investigation agency in the criminal justice system plays a major role and they are, in fact, the kingpins in the criminal investigation system. Only on a reliable investigation and with reliable evidence, a proper justice can be rendered.
24.It is accepted by the Courts that fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments, has held that fair investigation is not only a right guaranteed to a victim, but also to an accused. Some of the notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the role of investigation agency and the right of a human being for a fair investigation are discussed infra.
25.In Re State of West Bengal and Others v. The Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [AIR 2010 SC
1476], the Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“41. … A right becomes a fundamental right because it has foundational value. Apart from the principles, one has also to see the structure of the Article in which the fundamental value is incorporated. Fundamental right is a limitation on the power of the State. A Constitution, and in particular that of it which protects and which entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the State are to be entitled is to be given a generous and purposive construction. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305, this Court has held that while considering the nature and content of fundamental rights, the Court must not be too astute to interpret the language in a literal sense so as to whittle them down. The Court must interpret the Constitution in a manner which would enable the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest measure. An instance of literal and narrow interpretation of a vital fundamental right in the Indian Constitution is the early decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court by a majority held that ‘procedure established by law’ means any procedure established by law made by the Parliament or the legislatures of the State. The Supreme Court refused to infuse the procedure with principles of natural justice. It concentrated solely upon the existence of enacted law. After three decades, the Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in A.K. Gopalan and held in its landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness. The Court further held that the procedure should also be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. This example is given to demonstrate an instance of expansive interpretation of a fundamental right. The expression ‘life’ in Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence. The right to life includes right to live with human dignity. This Court has in numerous cases deduced fundamental features which are not specifically mentioned in Part-III on the principle that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in the enumerated guarantees.
… … …
44. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the Constitutional Scheme, we conclude as follows:
(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.”
26.In Re Sidhartha Vashisht vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [AIR 2010 SC
2352], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“83. … The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen’s right under Articles 19 and 21 and expensive power of the police to make investigation. These well established principles have been stated by this Court in the case of Sasi Thomas v. State and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC (Criminal) 72, State Inspector of Police v. Surya Sankaram Karri (2006) 3 SCC
(Criminal) 225 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 984, this Court specifically stated that a concept of fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We have referred to this concept of judicious and fair investigation as the right of the accused to fair defence emerges from this concept itself.”
27.In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Others [(2010) 12 SCC 254], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to fair investigation is a fundamental right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in the following words:-
“32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer “is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth”. (Vide R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabAIR 1960 SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69).
… … …
45. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. …”
28.This Court, in Sathyavani Ponrani v. Samuel Raj [2010 (4) CTC 833], while dealing with fair investigation, has held that such a right is mandatory under Articles 14, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observation is extracted as under:-
“66.Free and Fair Investigation and Trial is enshrined in Article 14 , 21 and 39-A of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the state to ensure that every citizen of the country should have the free and fair investigation and trial. The preamble and the constitution are compulsive and not facultative, in that free access to the form of justice is integral to the core right to equality, regarded as a basic feature of our Constitution. Therefore, such a right is a constitutional right as well as a fundamental right. Such a right cannot be confined only to the accused but also to the victim depending upon the facts of the case. Therefore, such a right is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. Any procedure which comes in a way of a party in getting a fair trial would in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
29.The petitioners have made out a clear case that the investigation officer / R6 has planted the witnesses PWs.18 to 20 for the purpose of diverting the investigation and close the case by fixing the petitioners as the accused, in order to protect the real accused. The second investigation officer / DSP, CBCID, Tirunelveli, has found that there was an intimacy for the deceased with the wife of Ravindran and he was about to examine the wife of Ravindran. But, before that, he went on leave and later on, the investigation was entrusted with the Inspector of Police, that too from Madurai.
30.The fourth investigation officer / R6 has not conducted any further investigation as to the recordings of the previous investigation officers in the CD file, but has proceeded in a different angle with a motive to fix the petitioners as the accused in order to close the case. As stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the right of fair investigation is not only for the victim, but also for the accused as well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that a fair investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
31.Therefore, this Court, without any hesitation, holds that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner, which violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India and the petitioners can very well knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the injustice caused to them because of this malicious prosecution and also to find out the truth. As already stated, this writ petition is filed not only for compensation, but also to find out the real truth by ordering for reinvestigation and therefore, this Court entertained this writ petition and the issue of maintainability is answered as such.
Point No.2 (Compensation) :-
32.If there is any infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by a public servant, the State is liable to pay compensation. Even the trial Court can award compensation, however, the powers of the trial Court u/s.357 Cr.P.C to award compensation is only to the victims and not to the accused. In this case, the trial Court has given a categorical finding that the investigation officer / R6, who filed the final report, has planted certain witnesses in order to fix the petitioners as accused. The State has not preferred any appeal as against the findings of the trial Court. The appeal against acquittal filed by the father of the deceased was also rejected by this Court.
33.Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents and the learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent have produced several judgments that the issue for compensation cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the trial Court has given a finding on the benefit of doubt and therefore, it cannot be taken as a ground to pay compensation to the accused. In the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, there are disputed facts, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has held that the disputed facts can be decided only before the competent civil Court by adducing evidence. This ratio laid down in these judgments on the disputed facts cannot be equated to the facts and circumstances of this case, where a clear finding has been given by the trial Court as against the investigation officer / R6, the manner in which he has conducted the investigation and the manner in which he has planted the witnesses and the manner in which the petitioners have been fixed as accused.
34.As discussed supra, this Court is also of the view that the investigation officer / R6 has been fixed by some powerful persons to side track the investigation which was conducted by the previous investigation officers and to close the criminal case. The investigation officer / R6 has also successfully completed the task, which has been entrusted upon him. Without any discussion with regard to the investigation conducted by the earlier investigation officer / DSP, CBCID, the sixth respondent / Inspector of Police has created certain statements from PWs.1 to 3, 18 to 20, inserted a new theory, by taking advantage of the provision u/s.162 Cr.P.C that the investigation agencies are not supposed to get the signature of the witnesses and fixed the petitioners, innocents, as accused. The findings of the trial Court and the available materials disclose the fact that the investigation was transferred to the sixth respondent in order to deviate the investigation and to close the criminal case and in that process, the sixth respondent has fixed the innocent passengers, who were in coach S-10, as accused on a commission of murder. As discussed above, the accused have been injured on the final report filed by the investigation officer / R6 and therefore, the State is liable to pay compensation.
35.This position has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions from time to time. In Re Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 178], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
“15. The law was crystallized in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa 1993CriLJ2899 . In that case, the deceased was arrested by the police, handcuffed and kept in a police custody. The next day, his dead-body was found on a railway track. This Court awarded compensation to the mother of the deceased. J.S. Verma J., (as he then was) spelt out the following principles :-
Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort.
Enforcement of the constitutional right and grant of redress embraces award of compensation as part of the legal consequences of its contravention.
A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is ‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort’ resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
… … …
17. It is thus now well settled that award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil
Procedure.”
36.Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and Others [(2013) 1 SCC
(LS) 305] has observed as follows:-
“Legal liability in damages exist solely as a remedy out of private law action in tort which is generally time-consuming and expensive, and hence when fundamental rights are violated the claimants prefer to approach constitutional courts for speedy remedy. The constitutional courts, of course, shall invoke its jurisdiction only in extraordinary circumstances when serious injury has been caused due to violation of fundamental rights, especially Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances the Court can invoke its own methods depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
37.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh Vs State of Jammu and
Kashmir and others [(1985) 4 SCC 677], has held as follows:-
“We can only say that the Police officers acted in a most high handed way. We do not wish to use stronger words to condemn the authoritarian acts of the Police. If the personal liberty of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is to be played with in this fashion, one can only wonder what may happen to lesser mortals. Police Officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar and Sebastian M. Hongray Vs Union of India. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischevous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh.”
38.Therefore, it is also a well settled principle that compensation can be granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even in addition to the remedies available under other enactments, if the facts of the case so warrants. However, the Court can restrict the relief according the facts and circumstances of each case.
39.The next position to be seen is compensation in cases of malicious prosecution. The term malicious prosecution has been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity v. Dilip Kumar
Ray [(2007) 14 SCC 568] as follows:-
“15. Malice and Malicious Prosecution as stated in the Advance Law of Lexicon, 3rd Edition by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as follows:
Malice – Unlawful intent
Ill Will; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm, Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant’s mind at the time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for publishing the words complained of. This must be distinguished from legal malice or malice in law which means publication without law full excuse and does not depend upon the defendant’s state of mind.
(1) The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act.
(2) Reckless disregard of the law or of a person’s legal rights.
Ill will: wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non legal contexts.
Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability. Any act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious, and this legal usage has etymology in its favour. The Latin militia means badness, physical or moral – wickedness in disposition or in conduct – not specifically or exclusively ill-will or malevolence; hence the malice of English law, including all forms of evil purpose. design, intent, or motive. But intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior intent being commonly distinguished as the motive. The term malice is applied in law to both these forms of intent, and the result is a somewhat puzzling ambiguity which requires careful notice. When we say that an act is done maliciously, we mean one of the two distinct things. We mean either that it is done intentionally, or that it is done with some wrongful motive.
Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognized mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and willful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result.
The Model Penal Code does not use ‘malice’ because those who formulated the Code had a blind prejudice against the word. This is very regrettable because it represents a useful concept despite some unfortunate language employed at times in the effort to express it.
“Malice” in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another. In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
“Malice”, in its legal sense, does not necessarily signally illwill towards a particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the law implies malice where one deliberately injures another in an unlawful manner.
… … …
“MALICIOUS PROSECUTION” means that the proceedings which are complained of were initiated from a malicious spirit, i.e., from an indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice. [10 CWN 253 (FB)]”

40.Therefore, the term malicious prosecution includes the unlawful intent or the improper motive or the malicious spirit or action on the part of the investigation agency.
41.It would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086], wherein it has been held that one of the ways in which the violation of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the authorities of the State can reasonably be prevented is to direct payment of monetary compensation to the individuals whose rights are affected. In para
10 it has been held as follows:
” … Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Art. 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner’s rights. It may have recourse against those officers.”
42.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews and Others [2018/INSC/822] has also provided the compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs to the petitioner therein for the malicious prosecution by the State as it is in violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The relevant observation is extracted as under:-
“31….The criminal law was set in motion without any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kind of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant which are basic to his human rights were jeopardised as he was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invites the public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of the fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy. It is because life commands self-respect and dignity.”
43.Further, I had an occasion to deal with a similar such case of malicious prosecution in a writ petition in V.N.Raja Mohamed and Another v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [WP(MD)Nos.21495, 21496 of
2016, dated 02.12.2022], wherein, it has been decided as follows:-
“20.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners must be compensated suitably for their false implication in the criminal case, infringment of fundamental rights and for the consequential sufferings they have undergone and therefore, these writ petitions are allowed. The Government shall pay a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh [Rupees Ten lakh] to the petitioner VN.Rajamohamed and Rs.8 Lakh [Rupees Eight Lakh] to petitioner M.Manoharan within a period of 16 [sixteen] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be recovered from Ratna Kumar, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dharmapurti District.
No costs.”
44.Therefore, if the facts provided in a case leads to the Act of Malicious Prosecution by an Officer of the State, the State is liable to pay compensation and can recover the same from the concerned Officer. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure its instrumentalities conduct their business in a proper and lawful manner. In this case, a great damage has been caused to the petitioners by an Officer of the State and therefore, the State is liable to pay the compensation.
Point No.3 (Findings of the trial Court) :-
45.Unlike civil proceedings, in criminal proceedings the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. An investigation does not amount to malice if the accused is acquitted merely on the scale of benefit of doubt. However, in certain cases, even though if the accused, at the end of trial, was acquitted on benefit of doubt, certain fact findings of the Court may show the serious lacuna or motive on the part of the investigation officer. In those circumstances, the Court cannot ignore the findings of the trial Court.
46.PW20 is the friend of Ravindran, against whom, the second investigation officer / DSP, CBCID has fixed that there was an illegal intimacy with his wife and the deceased. PW20 has been inserted as a witness only on 21.01.2010. Till such time, all the three investigation officers were not aware of this witness and it is also not known as to how the sixth respondent / fourth investigation officer has come to know that PW20 also travelled in the said train and witnessed the occurrence. There is no explanation in his statement with regard to that.
47.PW20 cannot be an eye witness and the trial Court has recorded that this witness is a planted witness and also recorded that the accused are maliciously prosecuted. However, as usual, the trial Court recorded the findings of acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt. An attempt was also made for filing an appeal as against the acquittal by the investigation agency and that was not accepted by the Government and the request was rejected by the Government. However, the appeal against acquittal filed by the father of the deceased in Crl A(MD)No.124 of 2013 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 01.04.2016.
48.The trial Court, in its judgment, has noted down several infirmities in the final report filed by R6. The relevant observations of the trial Court in this regard are referred as follows:-
a) PW20 Mr. Selvam:
1. PW20, a tea stall owner at Madurai was introduced as an eye witness by R6 after two years. It is not known as to how the investigation officer was able to find Mr.Selvam [PW20] after two years from the date of occurrence. (99/ /// kJiu rp/gp/rp/I/o nghyPrhh;
vt;thW m/rh/20I fz;Qqw;w rhl;rp vdW; bjhpe;J bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;gjw;F m/rh/20My; ve;j tpsf;fKk;
Twg;gltpy;iy////
194/ ,e;j tHf;fpYk; rk;gtk; ele;J ,U tUl’;fSf;F
gpd;g[ rk;gtj;jpid fz;Qqw;wjhf m/rh/20 TwpapUg;gjhYk; m/rh/20I vt;thW g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhp fz;Qqw;w rhl;rp vd;W bjhpe;J bfhz;lhh; vd;gjw;F ve;j tpsff; Kk; ,y;yhjjhYk; ntW rhl;rpfs; ,y;yhjjhYk; fz;Qqw;w rhl;rpaj;jpd; rhl;rpak; ek;gj;jFe;jjhf ,y;yhky; ,aw;iff;F Kuzhdjhf
fhzg;gLtjhYk; ///)
2. PW.20 is very close to Mr.Ravindran, who is the uncle of the deceased. Both are having respectable positions in a state political party. PW20 initially deposed before the Court that he was not at all familiar with Mr.Ravindran. However, in cross examination, after showing the invitation card of his own family function, he accepted that he is very familiar with Mr.Ravindran. Further, from the invitation card, it can be seen that
Mr.Ravindran was the chief guest for that function. (kPz;Lk;
miHj;J FWf;F tprhuiz bra;j nghJ vd; kidtp bgah; jdbyl;Rkp vd;Wk; vd; K:j;j kfs; bgah; tsh;kjp vd;why; rhp jhd; vd;Wk; vd; kfspd; fhJFj;J tpHh 11/04/2010 mdW; tpkhpirahf ele;jJ
vd;Wk; v/j/rh/M2 vd; kfspd; fhJFj;Jf;fhf
moff; g;gl;l miHg;gpjH; vd;why; rhp jhd; vd;Wk; utPe;jpud; 1tJ gFjp jp/K/f brayhsh; jiyikapy;
nkw;go tpnrc&k; ele;jJ vd;why; rhp jhd;
vd;Wk; ,we;J nghdth;nkw;go utPe;jpud; mz;zd; kfd;
vd;why; rhp jhd; vd;Wk; vd;Dila jiyikapy;
epHw;Fil mikj;jjw;F nkw;go utPe;jpudpd; gi[ fg;glk; itf;fg;gl;L ngdh; nghh;L itf;fg;gl;lJ vdW; k; vd; kPJ ,/j/r/gphpt[ 399 gphptpd;go xU tHf;F epYitapy; cs;sJ vd;why; rhp jhd; vdW; k; ///)
3. Though PW20 is very close to Mr.Ravindran, it is not known as to why he did not say about the incident to anyone for two years from the date of occurrence. There is no explanation at all from PW20 for
this delay. (m/rh/20 TWtJ nghdW; rk;gtk;
ele;jpUe;jhy; m/rh/20 ghh;j;jpUg;gjhy; bra;jpj;jhspy; tpsk;gug;gLj;jg;gl;l nghJk; tprhuizfs; elj;jg;gl;l nghJk; ve;j gFjpf;F mth; gpujpepjpahf ,Uf;fpwhnuh
me;j gFjpapd; jp/K/f/ brayhsUf;F
cwtpdauhf ,we;J nghdth; Fwpj;J ,we;J nghd
rk;gtk; Fwpj;J nkw;go egh;fsplk;
bjhpag;gLj;jp ,Ug;ghh;/ mt;thW vJt[k;
bjhpag;gLj;jpajhf m/rh/20 My;
Twg;gltpy;iy/ ,uz;L tUl’;fs; ahhplKk; Twhky; ,Ue;J tpl;L rk;gt jpdk; jdi; df; js;spf; bfhz;L brd;w egh;fis ghh;j;jhf Twptpl;L ,uz;L
tUl’;fSf;F gpd;g[ mth;fis milahsk; fhz;gpj;jjhf TWtJ ek;gj;jFe;jjhft[k;
Vw;fj;jFe;jjhft[k; ,y;iy ///)
4. It is not acceptable that he was able to identify all the accused persons in the first instance after two years.
5. There is no evidence to show that PW20 was travelling on the train on the particular date. (100/ rk;gt uapy; tz;oapy; m/rh/20 gazpj;jhh; vd;gjw;F ve;j Mjhu’;fSk; ,y;iy/ v!;9 nfhr;rpy; ntW egh;fs; ,Ue;jjhf Twpa nghjpYk; uapy;nt rhh;l;lhdJ v!;9 nfhr;rpy; vtUk;
gazpahf ,y;iy vd;gij g[yg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ ///)
6. Having a tea shop in Madurai, it is not known as to why he went to Trivandrum to fetch tea powder, when it is not his usual business to go to Trivandrum for fetching tea power. (99/ ///
kJiuapy; Of;fil itj;jpUf;Fk; egh;
jpUtde;jg[uj;jpw;Fk; ehfh;nfhtpYf;Fk; brdW; Oj;J}s;
th’;fr; brd;wjhf TWtJ
ek;gj;jFe;jjhf ,y;yhjjhy; m/rh/20 ,e;j tHf;fpy; g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpay; rhl;rpahf
jahhpf;fg;gl;oUf;fpwhh; vd;gij jhd; m/rh/20d;
rhl;rpak; g[yg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ/)
7. There is also a criminal case pending as against PW20 for the offence under Section 399 IPC.
8. As per PW20’s version, one person was holding the head of the deceased, two persons were holding the legs of the deceased and one other person sat on the chest of the deceased and stabbed the deceased. This is not at all possible in a single berth, because of lack of space.
9. Therefore, PW20 is planted by the investigation officer, the sixth respondent herein, after two years of the incident.

b) PW18 and PW19 :
1. PW18, Mr.Sathyadoss, was working as Head Constable in Nagarkovil
Railway Police and PW19, Mr.Sugumar, was working as a A/C
Mechanic in Southern Railway.
2. As per the railway chart, no passengers were travelling in S.10 Coach, excepting the petitioners.
3. PW18 and PW19 have stated that they were travelling in S.9 Coach.
They claimed that they have warrant for travelling, however the same has not been produced before the Court nor any attempt has been made by the prosecution to produce the same. (101/ m/rh/18k; m/rh/19k;
nkw;go nfhr;rpy; gazpj;jjhf Twpa nghjpYk; mjw;fhd thuz;l; ,Ug;gjhf Twpa nghjpYk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mij
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy ///)
4. Both PW18 and PW19 are working in the railway department. If they are the direct witnesses to the occurrence, they should have informed the same to their respective higher officers. At least, they should have informed the same to the Station Master, once the train reached Tirunelveli. However, they did not utter any word to their superior officers when the train halted at Tirunelveli Junction. (101/ ///
mthf; shYk; uapy;ntJiwpay; gzpg[hpak[ ; egh;fsplKk; uapy;nt fhty;Jiwapy; gzpg[hpa[k; egh;fsplKk; rk;gtk; Fwpj;J vJt[k; Twg;glhky; uapy;nt epiyak; te;j
gpd;dUk; !;nlrd; kh!;lhplk; vJt[k;
Twg;glhky; ,Ue;jjhf TWtJ nkw;go ,U egh;fSk; nkw;go nfhr;rpy; gazpj;jhh;f;s vd;gjw;F ve;j
MjhuKk; ,y;yhj nghJ ///)
5. PW18 stated that immediately after the incident, he informed the same to one Muthuraj, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police, who is his higher authority. However, neither the said Muthuraj was examined before the Court nor the call records of PW18 was produced by the prosecution. (104/ m/rh/18 rk;gtk; ele;jt[ld;
cjtp Ma;thsh; Kj;Juh$pf;F bry;nghd; K:yk; jfty; bfhLj;jjhf TwpapUf;Fk; nghJ nkw;go Kj;Juh$; vd;gtiu rhl;rpahf tprhhpj;J mij epU:gpf;fhjjw;F vd;d fhuzk; vd;W muR jug;gpy; Twg;gltpy;iy/ mJ nghd;W nkw;go m/rh/18d; bry;nghdpy; ,Ue;J m/rh/18 Kj;Juh$%f;F jfty; bjhptpj;jhh; vd;gij epU:gpf;f ve;j eltof;ifak[ ; vLf;fg;gltpy;iy ///)
6. As per the version of PW18 and PW19, a person stabbed the deceased and ran towards S.10 coach in a moving train. However, as per the version of PW.20, three persons were holding the deceased and one person stabbed the deceased on chest. (102/ m/rh/18.19 xU egh; Fj;jptpl;L Xoajhf TwpapUf;Fk; nghJ m/rh/20 Kd: ;W egh;fs; gpoj;J itj;jpUf;f xU egh; Fj;jpajhf
rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;s fhuzj;jpdhy; m/rh/18.19k; m/rh/20I
me;j nfhr;rpy; ghh;j;jjhf Twhj fhuzj;jpdhy;
m/rh/18.19.20 nkw;go nfhr;rpy; ,Ue;jpUf;f tha;g;gpy;iy vd;Wk; mth;fs; rk;gtj;jpid fz;Qqw;wpUf;f tha;g;gpy;iy vd;Wk; ,e;j tHf;fpw;fhf jahhpf;fg;gl;l rhl;rpfs; vd;Wk;
,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/)
7. Therefore, these witnesses did not witness the incident at all and they are all planted witness by the investigating officer / sixth respondent herein.
c. PW3, PW.8 and PW9:
1. PW3, Mr.Palani, was the Ticket Examiner who boarded the Train at
Tirunelveli Junction. PW8, Mr.Krishnan, was the Station Master of
Tirunelveli Railway Station and PW9 was the Station Manager of the Tirunelveli Railway Station.
2. As per the photographs taken from the scene of occurrence and the deposition made by PW37 (Photographer), there is a visible stab injury in the face. The body of the deceased was found lying upside down near Berth No.15. When the body was lifted, these stab injuries must have been seen by the officials. (115/ m/rh/37d; rhl;rpak; rh/bgh/35
g[ifg;gl’;fs; ,we;j eghpd; ifapy; btspg;gilahf fha’;fs; Kfj;jpy; fha’f; Sk; tapw;wpy; ehd;F Fj;Jf; fha’;fsk; fhzg;gLfpd;wJ vd;gij g[yg;gLj;Jk; nghJ tapw;wpy; fha’f; s; rl;il kiwj;J ,Ue;jhYk; Kfj;jpYk;
ifapYk; cs;s fha’;fs; btspg;gilahf bjhpa[k;
tpjj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ me;j egiu
xU ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;J vLj;J itf;Fk; nghJ tapw;wpYs;s fhak; bjhpa tha;g;g[s;sJ vd;gjhy; xU egh; bfhiy bra;ag;gl;oUf;fpwhh; vdW; ghh;j;j mstpny bjhpa[k; tpjj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ !;nlrd; kh!;l; nkyhsh; kwW; k;
T.T.R Mfpath;fs; me;jf; nfhr;ir Jz;of;f eltof;if vLf;fhky; fGtp tpl;oUg;gJ mthf; s; jla’;fis mHpg;gjw;fhf bray;gl;oUf;fpwhhf; s; vd;gij
cWjpg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ/ uj;j the;jp vLf;Fk; egUf;F ifapy; mHkhd btl;Lf;fhak; fhz;gjw;F tha;g;gpy;iy/ Kfj;jpYk; fhak; fhzg;gl tha;g;gpy;iy vd;gjhy; ghh;f;Fk; ,lj;jpnyna fhak; ,Ug;gJ bjhpe;Jk; mth; uj;j the;jp vLj;jjhf Twp nfhr;ir fGhp tpl;oUg;gJ rk;ge;jg;gl;l egiu fhg;ghw;Wtjw;fhf !;nlrd; kh!;lh;. T.T.R nkyhsh; Mfpath;fs; bray;gl;oUf;fpd;wdh; vd;gij jhd;
cWjpg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ/)
3. The Station Master, Manager and TTE, in order to protect the murderer, cleaned the coach immediately, after the Train halted again in Tirunelveli junction.
4. When there is a clear stab injury, in order to escape from their responsibilities, these witnesses are lying that it is blood vomit.
d) PW-46, Inspector Marirajan (R6):
1. The investigating officer has admitted that while beginning the investigation, he went to the house of accused nos.1 and 2 and conducted an enquiry. However, the investigating officer has failed to record their statements in the case diary. (135/ /// 28/10/2009 md;w
ehl;Fwpg;gpy; vjphpfs; xUtiu tprhhpj;jjhf nkw;Fwpg;g[ bra;Js;nsd; vd;Wk; mjpy; mth;fSila
thf;FK:yk; ek;g[k;goahf ,y;yhjjhy; gjpt[ bra;atpy;iy
vd;W vGjpa[s;nsd; vd;Wk; vjphpfs; vjph;kiwahf vd;dplk; thf;FK:yk; bfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;gjw;F Mjhuk;
vd;dplk; ,y;iy vd;W rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;s
fhuzj;jpdhy; vjphpfs; jpUbey;ntyp uapy;nt nghyprpy; bfhLj;j thf;FK:yj;jpid nghd;W bfhLj;jjhy; mij gjpt[ bra;ahky; kWj;J tpl;ljhf vjphpfs; jug;gpy; nfl;fg;gl;l fUj;J Vw;fj;jf;fjhf ,Uf;fpwJ/)
2. There is no explanation from the investigating officer as to how he came to know about PW.20 after two years of the occurrence.
3. The accused were arrested even before conducting any identification
parade. (129/ /// m/rh/20d; rhl;rpaj;jpd; mog;gilapy;
milahs mzptFg;g[ vJt[k; elj;Jtjw;F Kd;ng
m/rh/20My; vjphpfis milahsk; fhz;gpg;gjw;F Kd;ng vjphpfis re;njfg;gl;L ifJ bra;jjhf TwpapUf;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; nkw;go bra;ifa[k; g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; tprhuiz rhpahdjy;y vd;gij jhd;
g[yg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ/)
4. There is no explanation from the investigating officer as to why the statements of PW18 and PW20 alone are hand written, when the rest of
the statements are typed. (133/ ,e;j g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahy; jahhpj;j thf;FK:y’;fspy; ,Uthpd; thf;FK:y’;fs; kl;Lnk ifapdhy; vGjg;gl;L ,ju
thf;FK:y’;fs; midj;Jk; jl;lr;R bra;ag;gl;oUf;fpwJ vd;W xg;g[f; bfhs;sg;gl;oUf;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; nkw;go
thf;FK:y’;fs; ,e;j g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahy;
jahhpj;J ,Uf;f tha;g;g[s;sJ vdW; k; nkw;go rj;jpajh!;. bry;tk; ,Uthpd; thf;FK:yj;jpd; mog;gilapy; jhd;
vjphpfis ifJ bra;jpUff; pd;w
fhuzj;jpdhy; ,th;fs; ,Uthpd; thf;FK:y’;fis kl;Lnk jdpg;gl;l ifahy; vGJtjw;F ve;j tpsff; Kk; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy; mJt[k; ,e;j tHf;fpd; cz;ik jdj;jpd;
kPJ Iag;ghl;il njhw;Wtpg;gjhf cs;sJ
vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/)
5. He has stated 10 other passengers from North India were travelling in S.10 Coach, however, he did not try to examine them, even though, they are important witnesses. (135/ m/rh/46 v!;/10 nfhr;rpy; ,ju
10 tlehl;L gazpfSk; gazpj;jhhf; s;/ nkw;go 10 tlehl;L gazpfSk; Kf;fpakhd rhl;rpfs; vd;W vdf;F njhd;wtpy;iy vdW; Twpa[s;s fhuzj;jpdhy; v!;10 nfhr;rpYs;sth;fs; jhd; bfhiy bra;jjhf g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahy; Twpa nghjpYk; bfhiy elf;Fk;
nghJk; mjw;F gpd;dUk; vjphpfSld; tlehl;L
gazpfs; ,Ue;jpUf;Fk; nghJ mth;fis tprhhpf;fhky; mthf; s; Kf;fpakhd rhl;rpfs; my;y vd;W g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhp Twtjpy; ,Ue;J mtUila g[yd; tprhuiz rhpahdjy;y vd;gJk; xU jiygl;rkhf
cs;sJ vd;gij g[yg;gLj;Jtjhf cs;sJ vdW; k; nkw;go tlehl;L gazpfis tprhhpj;jpUe;jhy; vjphpfs; nkw;go Fw;wr;bra;ifapy;