I SHARE MY EXPERIENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING CASE.......
C.C. No. 63/2009 : (Crime No. 658/2007) on the record of J.M. Court, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District in the State of Tamilnadu in South India.
(i).I am the de facto complainant and most of the offenders are the persons accused in C.C.No. 43/95 who claim themselves to be supporters of the influential politicians. (Note: points (x), (xi) and (xii) of topic Political interference in the legal profession in india posted by me in the Forum would narrate the motive of the offenders).
(ii).Complaint was timely lodged on 08.09.2007, but intentional delay in registration of F.I.R. on 11.09.2007 was deliberately attributed to defacto complainant by the police.
(iii).Delay in sending the F.I.R. to the nearest Magistrate on 14.09.2007.
(iv).Incorrect particulars were mentioned in the prescribed form of F.I.R. by the police as to the date of occurrence and date of report to the police station to enable the accused to raise “Plea of Alibi” during the trial.
(v).Representation of defacto complainant about unlawful activities of Police Officer [S.I. of Police (L&O)] was not considered by the police higher officers of Dindigul District in spite of an intimation from the Special Cell of Chief Minister of Tamilnadu (Petition No. F / 267749 dt. 22.09.2007).
(vi).Statement of complainant has not yet been recorded by the Police.However, the Investigating Officer has filed fabricated statements of witnessesbefore J.M. Court, knowing very well about the probability of witnesses turning hostile and retracting their alleged statements to the police.
(vii).Eye witnesses have been made as hear-say witnesses to make sure that the possible omissions and contradictions in their testimony during the trial would be favourable to the accused.
(viii).Defective charge-sheet was filed only on 16.03.2009 after a biased, partial investigation.
(ix).Belated, but ante dated final report was filed before the J.M. Court after a period of 18 months with the obvious intention to dilute the order of re-investigation if any, likely to be passed in the future at the instance of the defacto complainant.
(x).Deliberate omission of the accused persons in the chare-sheet.
(xi).On the contrary, the person who had been specifically mentioned in the complaint as an abettor of the offence, has been included in the list of prosecution witnesses (P.W. 2) in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. (Note : The same person had been made as accused as well as prosecution witness in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in C.C. No. 43/95 also).
(xii).Material Particulars were altered by the Investigating Officer both in the records of police station and in the records of J.M. Court even without obtaining the permission of the Judicial Magistrate with the obvious intention of enabling the accused to claim benefit of doubt.
(xiii).I myself being the defacto compalinant in the case, was threatened to face dire consequences by the merciless rowdy and his henchmen at the instigation of the offenders and the Batlagundu Police officers on my cell phone No. 98421 97857 from the cell No. 99421 72878 during the midnight of 25.09.2007, i.e. on 26.09.2007 at 12.35 a.m. and again at 01.06 a.m. I was warned by them to withdraw some cases against them including the criminal complaint in crime No. : 658 / 2007 and also not to file any private complaint against the Batlagundu Police officers. My complaint in this regard was not accepted in Batlagundu Police Station and my complaint by telegram to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District on 27.09.2007 (Receipt No. S0035 issued by the Central Telegraph Office, Madurai) was also not registered nor was any enquiry made to me so far.
(xiv).The misbehaviour and rowdyism of the person who had threatened me on my cell phone had been reported in the “Nakkheeran”, a well known Tamil bi-weekly Dt. 21.06.2008 on page No. 15 when he and his henchmen had assaulted brutally the supporters of yet another powerful politician of Trichy on 09.06.2007 in front of the Batlagundu Police Station itself for the simple reason that the victims Van did not allow the Lorry of the offenders to overtake while coming down from the Kodaikkanal hills in the narrow road. As per the report of the above said Magazine, the Batlagundu Police were the mute spectators of the occurrence.(Note : Since the victims in that case were reportedly the supporters of yet another powerful politician, a criminal case was registered against the offenders as Crime No. 269/08 on 09.06.2008 itself. However, it is learnt that this criminal case also has been registered only to satisfy the high command of a political party).
(xv).One of the prosecution witness in whose presence the observation Mahazer was prepared by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 658 / 2007 : CC. No. 63/09, had reportedly met with a road accident (!) and unfortunately sustained a severe head injury on 19.08.2009 at about 8 p.m. in Batlagundu. Thereafter, I was once again threatened by the offenders on 24.08.2009 to face the similar consequences in the event of deposing against them in CC. No. 63/09: Crime No. 658/07 and also was warned not to conduct any case against them as well as the erring police officers of Batlagundu who had been acting in their favour. Thereafter, witness summons was served on 31.08.2009 in C.C. No. 63/2009. However, since the administration of criminal justice has now been reduced to an empty formality, I am not prepared to depose against the offenders in the J.M. Court of Nilakkottai. (Note : Complaint in Cr.No.701/2007 regarding the possible dangers to the lives of persons likely to depose against the above stated offenders was lodged on 25.09.2007. However, the same has been reported to be false complaint / mistake of fact by the Batlagundu Police after 27 months from the date of registration of F.I.R. God alone knows that what happened to the witness of the observation Mahazer in CC No. 63/09 was a mere accident or an attempt to murder to prevent him and other witnesses from deposing against the offenders in CC. No. 63/09 : Crime No. 658/2007).
(xvi).In this case, the Investigating Officer, politicians and rowdies have seen to it that the charges in the case are likely to fail for paucity of evidence and the prospect of successful prosecution is remote.
(xvii).I had filed a Copy Application No. 292/08 dt. 22.08.2008 for issuance of certified Xerox copy of F.I.R. and my complaint to enable myself to prove the unlawful activities of the police in the Court of law regarding intentional mentioning of incorrect particulars and material alterations in the prescribed form of FIR. Even though my affidavit filed in support of the copy application for issuance of Xerox certified copy would justify my request, the copy application was returned by the Judicial Magistrate of Nilakkottai with a remark “Xerox machine is not available in this court, Hence Xerox copy could not be given”.(Note : Xerox machine is available within the premises of J.M. Court, Nilakkottai. Even if the Judicial Magistrate was not willing to issue a certified Xerox copy, he could have treated my affidavit to be a complaint against the unlawful activities of the Batlagundu Police Officers and could have legally proceeded against them in the interest of justice. However, the J.M. Court did not do the same for the best reasons known to itself.)
(xviii).As an advocate, if I proceed against the unlawful activities of police and other offenders either before High Court or any other Courts of law and in that event, if I am killed as I have been threatened by them, that murder case also would meet the same fate of the CC. No. 63/09 : Crime No. 658/07 and ultimately the murderers would be acquitted from the case. The State also may not seriously go in appeal because I am not an indispensable person for any ruling party in India. This is how the law-abiding citizens would lose faith and confidence in the Justice Delivery System in India and are constrained to surrender some of the dishonest politicians to secure justice (!) in any manner and ultimately, they also would become the habitual offenders in the future.(Note : Nowadays, the Batlagundu Police is unusually interested in confirming whether I would come to J.M. Court of Nilakkottai for deposing in CC. No. 63/09. However, since my deposition would not make any difference in the case, and protection to the witnesses who depose against the offenders including the dishonest Police Officers not being guaranteed, I have decided not to depose in that matter, because I don’t want to be one among those witnesses who were killed in the premises of the Courts of law).
Threats to witness
“If witnesses are in this way deterred from coming forward in aid of legal proceedings, it would be impossible that justice can be administered. It would be better that the doors of the Courts of justice were at once closed” (Lord Langdale).
(i). Registration of F.I.R.
“State is duty bound to register a case on basis of information which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. There is hardly any discretion with the police not to register an F.I.R. or take entry in Daily Diary Register, as the case may be”.
(2007) 1 SCC 1 : 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom.) (F.B.)
2006 (1) Crimes 229 (S.C) and (2009) 1 Mh. L. J. 97 (Bom) (D.B.)
(ii). Complaint before Magistrate
“Nomenclature is inconsequential and there is no specific format for a complaint being made to a Magistrate contemplated under Cr.P.C.”
“A petition cannot be rejected by the Court merely on the ground that it does not contain a proper prayer clause insofar as it discloses commission of a cognizable offence.”
2006 (1) SCC 627 and 2010 ALL. M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom) (F.B.)
(iii) Detection and investigation of Crime
“Detection of crime, investigation of crime and to prosecute the offender are some of the pertinent duties of the State in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Generally, it is not expected of an individual to investigate an offence and collect necessary proof for trial before the Court. It is primary duty of the police to immediately register an F.I.R. and to investigate the matter in accordance with law and not to push any individual to knock the doors of the Courts for inquiry, investigation and trial of an offence”.
(2008) 7 SCC 164 and 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom.) (F.B.)