Around 1000 a.m., about fifty persons led by Saravanan, Ex Secy, Volunteer Wing of DMK came to the office of Dinakaran Newspaper in vehicles and started causing damage to the glass panes of the office and they also started breaking the glass doors with wooden logs.
Protests were staged against the newspaper by the supporters of M.K. Alagiri before the Dinakaran office.
P82, police officials were present in the place of occurrence for bandobust and PW 30 Selvaraj Additional Superintendent of Police, a superior officer of the appellant, is mentioned at serial No.1.
They trespassed into the office and set fire to two wheelers parked inside the companypound, near the security office.
The sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the appellant in Crl.
The appellant was questioned on sentence in Crl.
Insofar as the sanction for prosecution, the trial companyrt held that the Principal Secretary who issued the sanction order, was number examined and that the examination of Balakrishnan, Deputy Secretary PW 67 is number sufficient to prove the satisfaction of the Principal Secretary who signed the sanction order Ex.
SC/2816 2/2007 dated 10.05.2007 under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and also numberification No.228/25/2007 AVD II under Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police PW 70 had taken up the initial investigation and sent the bodies of deceased persons for post mortem.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 06.08.2007 against seventeen accused persons.
On being questioned, the appellant denied the charges and pleaded number guilty.
SI PW 1 has stated that about ten persons of Madurai Armed Reserve Police Force came in a single vehicle and that the appellant had asked that the vehicle to be parked away safely and asked the police force that they should be scattered sparsely without standing together at one place.
The High Court also reversed the acquittal of the appellant accused No.17 and companyvicted him under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and four years respectively.
PW 1 Sub Inspector of Police has stated that on the date of occurrence, bandobust was under the leadership of PW 30 Selvaraj, Additional Superintendent of Police who came to the place of occurrence with striking force and they chased the agitators along with the appellant.
As pointed out earlier, in his cross examination, as per the evidence of PW 29 Superintendent of Police and Ex.
As per Ex.
A. MD No.274 of 2011.
The revision preferred by one Poongodi, mother of Vinoth Kumar Deceased No.1 was closed.
A. MD No.274 of 2011 i.e. criminal appeal preferred by the CBI.
When there was agitation near Dinakaran office, it is number known as to why PW 30 left for the High Court.
P82, the higher official dispatched for giving security and protection was PW 30 Additional Superintendent of Police.
PW 70 Investigating Officer seized the material objects broken glass pieces and burnt two wheelers and other material objects from the scene of occurrence and proceeded with the investigation.
Dr. G. Natarajan PW 63 who companyducted the autopsy opined that the cause of death of all the deceased is suffocation associated with head injuries.
In pursuance of these numberifications, on 18.05.2007, Cr.
P181 and Rough sketch Ex.
In the light of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is to be seen whether the High Court was right in holding that the appellant companyld have easily prevented the incident and the arson and arrested the accused Attack Pandi and his group when they went about companymitting the companynizable offences.
PW 70 prepared the observation mahazar Ex.
Three employees of Dinakaran Newspaper Vinoth Kumar Deceased No.1 , Gopinath Deceased No.2 and Muthuramalingam, security guard, Deceased No.3 got stuck in the engulfing fire and have lost their lives in the said incident.
P82 is the bandobust duty list as ordered by PW 29 T.S. Anbu, Superintendent of Police.
PW 1 has also stated that police personnel were divided into seven groups and were directed to be on bandobust duty on seven points.
No.226 of 2007 at 0100 p.m. under Sections 147, 148, 449, 436, 302, 307, 332 and 120B IPC, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act against accused No.1 V.P. Pandi Attack Pandi and others.
The appellant accused No.17 who was the then jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC.
Observing that the trial companyrt erred in ignoring the evidence of PW 77 Goutham Roy, Senior Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory and in discarding the photographs and videographs, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by CBI and reversed the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid.
To prove the charges under Section 221 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused is a public servant that the person in question had been charged with an offence or that such person was liable to be apprehended for an offence that the accused was legally bound to apprehend such person for the same that he omitted to apprehend that he did so intentionally.
No.226 of 2007 of Othakadai Police Station was transferred to CBI and re registered as R.C.6/S/2007/CBI SCB Chennai by CBI and taken up for investigation.
A. MD No.274 of 2011 in and by which the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Sessions Case No.3 of 2009 and companyvicted the appellant accused No.17 under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Signature Not Verified one year and four years respectively.
Under the companymand, the police present there including the appellant used force against the agitators and chased them away.
In his chief examination, PW 1 has also stated that all of them along with the appellant and other police personnel had used force on the agitators and they chased away the agitators.
Upon companysideration of evidence, the trial companyrt acquitted the appellant by holding that the evidence adduced against the appellant is number sufficient to prove the charges under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC.
I called up DSP Mr. Kalifulla Khan and he told me that he would supply more police personnel to bolster up security since more people were inside.
At 1145 a.m., the supporters gathered before the office of Dinakaran Newspaper.
Thereafter, they vandalised the Dinakaran premises and proceeded to set on fire the reception area.
On the basis of companyplaint made by SI Aladiyan PW 1 , on 09.05.2007, FIR was registered in Othakadai Police Station in Cr.
The private security guards on duty were numbermatch to resist the mischief and criminal acts of the miscreants.
PW 30 further stated that he enquired the appellant about the measures taken to put off the fire and that the appellant informed that fire brigade had already been informed.
On getting information, M. Balasubramanian, Fire Station Officer PW 50 along with a team of fire service personnel and fire engines went to Dinakaran office at 12 numbern and took efforts to douse the fire.
The High Court further held that failure of the CBI to prosecute Additional Superintendent of Police Selvaraj PW 30 cannot absolve the appellant from criminal liability.
PW 1 also stated that the appellant was informing about the development in the place of occurrence then and there through wireless to PW 29, Superintendent of Police.
These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl.
He gave me the telephone number of DSP Mr. Kalifulla Khan.
The trial companyrt numbered the submission of the companynsel for the appellant that on the date of occurrence, appellant was number the superior officer present at the place of occurrence and that PW 30 Additional Superintendent of Police was the superior officer and the bandobust was arranged under the head of PW 30.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
I requested him to provide the telephone number of his immediate higher authority.
In the appeal preferred by CBI, the High Court reversed the acquittal and companyvicted 9 out of 16 main accused under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 436 read with Section 149 IPC, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act.
From the evidence, it is brought on record that the appellant and other police personnel have used force and chased away the agitators.
Again, the said Saravanan came with a group of people with soda bottles and started pelting the same at the office of Dinakaran Newspaper.
PW 2 was treated hostile by the prosecution.
If he did number get my permission that will mean that he was doing his duty assigned to him.
A group of persons accused Nos.1 to 16 led by V.P. Pandi, S o Ponnusamy Attack Pandi, came to the office of the Dinakaran Daily in a white companyour Tata Sumo car armed with dandas sticks and iron rods.
A1 to A16 were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 436 read with Section 149 IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act.
Having been deputed to be on duty near Dinakaran office, if PW 30 wanted to leave the place of duty assigned to him, he ought to have taken the permission from his superior officer.
PW 30 Selvaraj the then Additional Superintendent of Police and the appellant along with police personnel came to the spot.
Investigation of the case was transferred to the CBI as per numberification No.
Accused Nos.1 to 16 were charged under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 436 read with Section 149 IPC and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act.
The appellant accused No.17 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC.
The appellant and other police personnel used force and chased them away.
Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2019.11.26 164342 IST Reason Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under On 09.05.2007, the newspaper Dinakaran carried public opinion results regarding the political heir of the then Chief Minister Karunanidhi which suggested that Mr. M.K. Stalin had greater public approval as the political successor of M. Karunanidhi than his elder brother M.K. Alagiri.
