1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State

Decided On : Jan-09-2013

Court : Chennai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 107 IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 226',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 228',
			(int) 17 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 19 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 20 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1/2013',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '307',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '1989.10',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '406',
			(int) 11 => '306',
			(int) 12 => '11',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '728',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '12',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '13',
			(int) 20 => '567',
			(int) 21 => 'two',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '5}.&quot',
			(int) 24 => '14',
			(int) 25 => '9/4/2000',
			(int) 26 => 'Two',
			(int) 27 => '367',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '1989.15',
			(int) 30 => '307',
			(int) 31 => '109',
			(int) 32 => '2',
			(int) 33 => '6',
			(int) 34 => '2',
			(int) 35 => '9',
			(int) 36 => '12',
			(int) 37 => 'four',
			(int) 38 => '347',
			(int) 39 => '109',
			(int) 40 => '2',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '275',
			(int) 43 => '228',
			(int) 44 => '20',
			(int) 45 => '228',
			(int) 46 => 'one',
			(int) 47 => '1',
			(int) 48 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'HONOURABLE',
			(int) 1 => 'R.C',
			(int) 2 => 'Sections 397',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'the Additional Sessions Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 6 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 7 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 8 => 'The Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 9 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 12 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 15 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 16 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 19 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 20 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 21 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 22 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 23 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 24 => 'the First Petitioner/A.2',
			(int) 25 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 26 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 29 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 30 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 31 => 'the Defacto Complainant'',
			(int) 32 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 33 => 'IPC',
			(int) 34 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 35 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 36 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 37 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 38 => 'The Learned Counsel',
			(int) 39 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 40 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 41 => 'IPC',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Court',
			(int) 44 => 'OTEHRS',
			(int) 45 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 46 => 'the accused towards commission',
			(int) 47 => 'Court',
			(int) 48 => 'REP',
			(int) 49 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564',
			(int) 54 => 'Section',
			(int) 55 => 'Court',
			(int) 56 => 'Court',
			(int) 57 => 'Court',
			(int) 58 => 'See Union of India Vs',
			(int) 59 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 60 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 61 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 62 => 'Kajiral',
			(int) 63 => 'Kajiral',
			(int) 64 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 65 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 66 => 'Tenkasi',
			(int) 67 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 68 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
			(int) 69 => 'Tenkasi Police Station',
			(int) 70 => 'Sections 341',
			(int) 71 => 'IPC',
			(int) 72 => 'the Revision Petitioners',
			(int) 73 => 'Court',
			(int) 74 => 'the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners',
			(int) 75 => 'Sections 341',
			(int) 76 => 'IPC',
			(int) 77 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 78 => 'the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST',
			(int) 79 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 80 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 81 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 82 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 83 => 'the Respondent/Police',
			(int) 84 => 'the Learned Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 85 => 'Tenkasi',
			(int) 86 => 'Accused under Sections 341',
			(int) 87 => 'IPC',
			(int) 88 => 'the Respondent/Police',
			(int) 89 => 'the First Revision Petitioner',
			(int) 90 => 'Subramani',
			(int) 91 => 'Court',
			(int) 92 => 'Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 93 => 'WEST BENGAL Vs',
			(int) 94 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 95 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 96 => 'Court',
			(int) 97 => 'Justice',
			(int) 98 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 99 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018',
			(int) 100 => 'Court',
			(int) 101 => 'Court',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'KARNATAKA Vs',
			(int) 104 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357',
			(int) 105 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 106 => 'ILR',
			(int) 107 => 'AIR',
			(int) 108 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 109 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 110 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 111 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 112 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 113 => 'Court',
			(int) 114 => 'Court',
			(int) 115 => 'the Court of law apart',
			(int) 116 => 'Court',
			(int) 117 => 'the Court of Law',
			(int) 118 => 'Court',
			(int) 119 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 120 => 'Court',
			(int) 121 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 122 => 'the Petitioners/Accused',
			(int) 123 => 'Court',
			(int) 124 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 125 => 'Court',
			(int) 126 => 'Court',
			(int) 127 => 'Discharge Application',
			(int) 128 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 129 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'Court',
			(int) 132 => 'Court',
			(int) 133 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 134 => 'The Additional Sessions Court'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl',
			(int) 1 => 'o”1',
			(int) 2 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2',
			(int) 3 => 'Mohamed @',
			(int) 4 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 5 => 'P.Kandasamy',
			(int) 6 => 'Accused',
			(int) 7 => 'stage&quot',
			(int) 8 => 'Law',
			(int) 9 => 'BATHIRAMMAL Vs',
			(int) 10 => 'Satvir Singh Vs',
			(int) 11 => 'Kumar Samal',
			(int) 12 => 'Driver Nainar Mohammed',
			(int) 13 => 'Criminal M.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'Mens Rea'',
			(int) 15 => 'Mohammed Asan @ Raja',
			(int) 16 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali',
			(int) 17 => 'S.227',
			(int) 18 => 'L.J 80.(Kant',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'MD',
			(int) 1 => 'Cr',
			(int) 2 => 'Cr',
			(int) 3 => 'Cr',
			(int) 4 => 'Cr',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'K.KALYANASUNDARAM',
			(int) 7 => 'Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Cri',
			(int) 10 => 'Husband',
			(int) 11 => 'Crime',
			(int) 12 => 'Cr',
			(int) 13 => 'Cr',
			(int) 14 => 'Cr',
			(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'Cr',
			(int) 17 => 'Accused',
			(int) 18 => 'Accused',
			(int) 19 => 'Accused',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr',
			(int) 21 => 'Cr'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2012',
			(int) 1 => '2012',
			(int) 2 => '2006',
			(int) 3 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 4 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 5 => '2012',
			(int) 6 => '2006',
			(int) 7 => '2012',
			(int) 8 => '2006',
			(int) 9 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 10 => '2012',
			(int) 11 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 12 => '2006',
			(int) 13 => '2012',
			(int) 14 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 15 => '1989',
			(int) 16 => '2007',
			(int) 17 => '2007',
			(int) 18 => '2007',
			(int) 19 => '1334',
			(int) 20 => '1335',
			(int) 21 => '12',
			(int) 22 => '1979',
			(int) 23 => '8/4/2006',
			(int) 24 => '2006',
			(int) 25 => '2012',
			(int) 26 => '2006',
			(int) 27 => '1989',
			(int) 28 => '2012',
			(int) 29 => '1989',
			(int) 30 => '1989',
			(int) 31 => '10/4/2006',
			(int) 32 => '1979',
			(int) 33 => '1973',
			(int) 34 => '1976',
			(int) 35 => '1889',
			(int) 36 => '1.Mad 35',
			(int) 37 => '194.Mad 508',
			(int) 38 => '21',
			(int) 39 => '1993',
			(int) 40 => 'Cal-DB)}.25',
			(int) 41 => '199.SC - 1744',
			(int) 42 => '1989',
			(int) 43 => '2012',
			(int) 44 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 45 => '2012',
			(int) 46 => '2012',
			(int) 47 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 48 => '2012'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli District',
			(int) 1 => 'the Accused No.2',
			(int) 2 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 4 => 'North Mount Road',
			(int) 5 => 'Accused',
			(int) 6 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 8 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 9 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 10 => 'Accused',
			(int) 11 => 'Tirunelveli District'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli',
			(int) 1 => 'Tirunelveli',
			(int) 2 => 'Tirunelveli'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 1 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 2 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 3 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 4 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Final Report',
			(int) 6 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First',
			(int) 1 => 'First',
			(int) 2 => 'first'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
			(int) 1 => 'the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about 8.30 p.m.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Town'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '964303',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-01-09',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL',
			'judgement' => 'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:</p><p>9. 1/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C (MD) No.536 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.1 o”</p><p>1. Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2. Mohamed @ Amjath Ali ... Petitioners Vs State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR), Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated 11/9/2012. !For Petitioners... Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah ^For respondent ... Mr.P.Kandasamy, GA (Criminal Side). - - - - - - - :ORDER The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (after splitting up the case) has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11/9/2012 in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>2. The Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on 11/9/2012 has among other things observed that &quot;..... In the considered opinion of this Court, a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution through the final report and the documents submitted therewith and therefore, the discrepancies in the investigation, if any, shall be disproved by the Accused during the trial stage&quot; and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>3. Assailing the order of the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 before this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order of the trial Court passed in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners name have not been mentioned in the First Information Report that the Defacto Complainant and the Second Accused are residents of the same street, but the Defacto Complainant mentioned in his complaint the Accused No.2 and 3 as two unnamed Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>5. Furthermore, according to the Petitioners, if the First Petitioner/A.2 has been involved in alleged occurrence, the Defacto Complainant could have given his name in the complaint itself and therefore, it is categorically clear that the prosecution story is a false one.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that no Identification Parade has been conducted by the prosecution and this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>7. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners advances an argument that it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioners only shouted at the time of alleged occurrence that 'to finish off the Defacto Complainant' and except these allegations, there are no overtact against the Petitioners.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>8. The prime contention projected on the side of the Petitioners is that there is no material to charge the Petitioners under Sections 341, 307 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also that as per the First Information Report, all the allegations have been made in respect of the First Accused alone.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>9. In any event, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that except the threatening words purported to have been uttered by the Petitioners, there are no other materials available on record for charging the Petitioners under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court ANANDA SEKARAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI {2007 (1) MLJ (Crl.) - 406}, wherein it is held as under:- &quot;A sensitive wife, aggrieved by the ordinary words, said to have been uttered by the husband &quot;nUe;jhy; nU my;yJ brj;J tpL&quot; meaning, 'whether you live or die' had committed suicide by pouring kerosene, setting ablaze, as spoken by P.W.2 creates a doubt genuinely whether that would come within the meaning of instigation and in my considered opinion &quot;no'. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.2's evidence is true, it fails to prove the ingredients required under Section 107 IPC., leading to 306 IPC or compelling the Court to infer the abetment as contemplated under law.&quot; 11. He also relies on the decision of this Court Ms.BATHIRAMMAL Vs. K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND OTEHRS {2007 (2) MLJ - 726}, wherein at page 728, it is observed and held as follows:- &quot;In the decision, Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that Section 511 makes attempt to commit an offence punishable. The offence attempted be one punishable by the Code with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are: (1). The offender should have done some act towards commission of the main offence (2). Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. Thus, attempt on the part of the accused is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511. RATIONES DECIDENDI As per Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the duty is cast upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record, he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. An attempt on the part of the accused towards commission of the main offence is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511 of IPC.&quot; 12. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision TAMILMARAN Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT {2007 (1) MLJ (Cri.) 1334}, wherein at page 1335, whereby and whereunder, it is observed thus:- &quot;The evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so, the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot; 13. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court DILAWAR BABU KURANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564), at page 567, wherein at paragraph 12, it is observed and held hereunder:- &quot;Now, the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said Section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (See Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another {1979 (3) SCC 5}.&quot; 14. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the facts of the prosecution are that on 8/4/2006, Kajiral walked on the asbestos sheet laying on the street near the Defacto Complainant's house, which was objected to by the Defacto Complainant and due to that a wordy quarrel has erected between them and that the said Kajiral informed the incident to the ambulance Driver Nainar Mohammed, who is the Town Secretary of TMMK and he called the Defacto Complainant Chinnathai and her husband and compelled them to seek apology to Kajiral. However, the Defacto Complainant and her husband had not apologised and due to that motive, on 9/4/2000, at about 8.30 p.m., the Defacto Complainant and her husband when they were returning from Tenkasi Town on Two Wheeler were waylaid on North Mount Road by the Accused with iron rod, assaulted the Defacto Complainant and her Husband and caused injuries. The other Accused viz., A.3 and A.4 instigated A.1 and A.2 to attack the Defacto Complainant's Husband and a case was registered in Crime No.276 of 2006 on the file of Tenkasi Police Station in respect of offences under Sections 341, 367 of IPC r/w. Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>15. It is to be pointed that the Revision Petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 has prayed for the issuance of an order by the trial Court to discharge them from the main case in S.C.No.95 of 2006. A perusal of the averments of the said Criminal M.P., shows that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners have taken a specific plea that in so far as they are concerned, the offences under Sections 341, 307, 109 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted at all. Further, it is the plea of the Petitioners that there is no material to charge them that they acted against the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST Community.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>16. That apart, in paragraph 6 of the Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012, the Petitioners have stated for charging them under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 'Mens Rea' of the Petitioners is to be necessarily proved and that the statement of the victim before the Doctor has to be considered and further, the Petitioners have no knowledge about the caste of the victim and they are acquainted with him. More importantly, the Petitioners in paragraph 9 of Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 12 have clearly mentioned that there is no specific overtact against them except 'shouting to finish him off'.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>17. It is to be borne in mind that the Respondent/Police has filed a Final Report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi against the four Accused under Sections 341, 347, 109 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears the First Accused Raja Mohammed Asan @ Raja is said to be a Juvenile.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>18. On the side of the Respondent/Police, reliance is placed on the confession of Accused Peer Mohammed Appa @ Beer Appa dated 10/4/2006 to the effect that the First Revision Petitioner (Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali) and the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali) have shouted at Subramani to finish him off and further, he beat him on left knee with iron pipe.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>19. At this stage, this Court, worth recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in SUPDT. AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND OTHERS {1979) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES - 274}, wherein at page 275, it has laid down as follows:- &quot;Where a case is at the stage of framing charges and the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced, the Magistrate has to consider the question of sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.&quot; 20. Also, this Court in the interest of Justice, cites the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court a. In the decision of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESH SINGH {AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018}, it is laid down as follows:- &quot;Reading Ss.227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.&quot; b. In the decision STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.H.ANNEGOWDA AND ANOTHER (AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held thus:- &quot;It is of no consequence that the Sessions Judge directed the accused to be 'discharged' because if the legal effect of the order was to acquit the accused, then the incorrect use of the expression 'discharge' by the Sessions Judge would not alter the legal position and convert the order of acquittal into one of discharge. 1976 Cri.L.J 80.(Kant). Affirmed. (1889) ILR 1.Mad 35 and AIR 194.Mad 508. Approved. The charge against the accused under the procedure prescribed in the new Code is to be framed for the first time by the Court of Session while according to the procedure prescribed under the old Code, the charge is framed by the committing Magistrate and the Court of Session is merely given the power to alter or amend the charge, if it thinks necessary to do so. It is, therefore, clear that when the Court of Session commences the trial of an accused, there is already before it a charge framed by the committing Magistrate and it is that charge, unless altered or amended under Section 226, that is required to be read out and explained to the accused and on which the plea of the accused is required to be taken.&quot; 21. In this connection, this Court pertinently makes a significant mention that Section 227 of Cr.P.C., is to be read with Section 228 of Cr.P.C. It is now a settled law that the charge sheet constitutes a prima facie evidence constituting the offence, so as to enable the trial Court to proceed further in the matter in issue. It cannot be gain said that the Court of law apart from looking into the relevant law has to take into account the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and then come to an independent and dispassionate conclusion whether any offence has been committed to frame charges against the concerned persons for trial before discharging the Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>22. A prima facie case is only to be seen, at the time of framing of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution at the time of framing of the charge and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the acquisition which they are making against the Accused persons are bound to be brought home against them. Equally, it is hazardous to act on the contradictions/discrepancies unless they are so patent and fatal and also glaring as to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without providing adequate opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>23. If there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be a groundless and futile exercise. Also, to force the Accused to undergo the ordeal of trial is a clear case of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is to sift and weigh the evidence for a specific purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the Accused are made out or not? Even grave suspicion is enough to frame the charge against the Accused as opined by this Court.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>24. In reality, a Court of Law need not undertake an elaborate or detailed enquiry in sifting and weighing the material confessional statement of the Accused. It is true that the Accused persons have right to seek the relief of discharge at any stage of the trial of the case. However, after the charge has been framed, it is not open to the Court of Law to discharge the Accused as per decision TAPATI BAG Vs. PATTIPABAN GHOSH {1993 Cr.L.J - 3932 (Cal-DB)}.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>25. Be that as it may, this Court also at this stage deems it appropriate to point out that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into and in fact, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SOM NATH THAPA (AIR 199.SC - 1744). In short, this Court opines that prima facie there are material available on record against the Petitioners to frame charges and it is always open to the Petitioners/Accused to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies of the prosecution case at the time of the trial of the main case. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the word 'ground' in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a main ground for conviction but a ground for putting the Accused on trial, as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD Vs. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORADIA {(1989) 1 SCC 71.(721). Looking at from any angle, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court after going through the contents of the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court when it has dismissed Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 (Discharge Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>26. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. mvs To 1. The Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR),Tirunelveli 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '964303'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 107 IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 226',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 228',
		(int) 17 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 19 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 20 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1/2013',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '307',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '1989.10',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '406',
		(int) 11 => '306',
		(int) 12 => '11',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '728',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '12',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '13',
		(int) 20 => '567',
		(int) 21 => 'two',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '5}.&quot',
		(int) 24 => '14',
		(int) 25 => '9/4/2000',
		(int) 26 => 'Two',
		(int) 27 => '367',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '1989.15',
		(int) 30 => '307',
		(int) 31 => '109',
		(int) 32 => '2',
		(int) 33 => '6',
		(int) 34 => '2',
		(int) 35 => '9',
		(int) 36 => '12',
		(int) 37 => 'four',
		(int) 38 => '347',
		(int) 39 => '109',
		(int) 40 => '2',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '275',
		(int) 43 => '228',
		(int) 44 => '20',
		(int) 45 => '228',
		(int) 46 => 'one',
		(int) 47 => '1',
		(int) 48 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'HONOURABLE',
		(int) 1 => 'R.C',
		(int) 2 => 'Sections 397',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'the Additional Sessions Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 6 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 7 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 8 => 'The Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 9 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 12 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 15 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 16 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 19 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 20 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 21 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 22 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 23 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 24 => 'the First Petitioner/A.2',
		(int) 25 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 26 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 29 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 30 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 31 => 'the Defacto Complainant'',
		(int) 32 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 33 => 'IPC',
		(int) 34 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 35 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 36 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 37 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 38 => 'The Learned Counsel',
		(int) 39 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 40 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 41 => 'IPC',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Court',
		(int) 44 => 'OTEHRS',
		(int) 45 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 46 => 'the accused towards commission',
		(int) 47 => 'Court',
		(int) 48 => 'REP',
		(int) 49 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564',
		(int) 54 => 'Section',
		(int) 55 => 'Court',
		(int) 56 => 'Court',
		(int) 57 => 'Court',
		(int) 58 => 'See Union of India Vs',
		(int) 59 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 60 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 61 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 62 => 'Kajiral',
		(int) 63 => 'Kajiral',
		(int) 64 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 65 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 66 => 'Tenkasi',
		(int) 67 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 68 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
		(int) 69 => 'Tenkasi Police Station',
		(int) 70 => 'Sections 341',
		(int) 71 => 'IPC',
		(int) 72 => 'the Revision Petitioners',
		(int) 73 => 'Court',
		(int) 74 => 'the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners',
		(int) 75 => 'Sections 341',
		(int) 76 => 'IPC',
		(int) 77 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 78 => 'the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST',
		(int) 79 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 80 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 81 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 82 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 83 => 'the Respondent/Police',
		(int) 84 => 'the Learned Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 85 => 'Tenkasi',
		(int) 86 => 'Accused under Sections 341',
		(int) 87 => 'IPC',
		(int) 88 => 'the Respondent/Police',
		(int) 89 => 'the First Revision Petitioner',
		(int) 90 => 'Subramani',
		(int) 91 => 'Court',
		(int) 92 => 'Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 93 => 'WEST BENGAL Vs',
		(int) 94 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 95 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 96 => 'Court',
		(int) 97 => 'Justice',
		(int) 98 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 99 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018',
		(int) 100 => 'Court',
		(int) 101 => 'Court',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'KARNATAKA Vs',
		(int) 104 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357',
		(int) 105 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 106 => 'ILR',
		(int) 107 => 'AIR',
		(int) 108 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 109 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 110 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 111 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 112 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 113 => 'Court',
		(int) 114 => 'Court',
		(int) 115 => 'the Court of law apart',
		(int) 116 => 'Court',
		(int) 117 => 'the Court of Law',
		(int) 118 => 'Court',
		(int) 119 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 120 => 'Court',
		(int) 121 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 122 => 'the Petitioners/Accused',
		(int) 123 => 'Court',
		(int) 124 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 125 => 'Court',
		(int) 126 => 'Court',
		(int) 127 => 'Discharge Application',
		(int) 128 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 129 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'Court',
		(int) 132 => 'Court',
		(int) 133 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 134 => 'The Additional Sessions Court'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl',
		(int) 1 => 'o”1',
		(int) 2 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2',
		(int) 3 => 'Mohamed @',
		(int) 4 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 5 => 'P.Kandasamy',
		(int) 6 => 'Accused',
		(int) 7 => 'stage&quot',
		(int) 8 => 'Law',
		(int) 9 => 'BATHIRAMMAL Vs',
		(int) 10 => 'Satvir Singh Vs',
		(int) 11 => 'Kumar Samal',
		(int) 12 => 'Driver Nainar Mohammed',
		(int) 13 => 'Criminal M.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'Mens Rea'',
		(int) 15 => 'Mohammed Asan @ Raja',
		(int) 16 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali',
		(int) 17 => 'S.227',
		(int) 18 => 'L.J 80.(Kant',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'MD',
		(int) 1 => 'Cr',
		(int) 2 => 'Cr',
		(int) 3 => 'Cr',
		(int) 4 => 'Cr',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'K.KALYANASUNDARAM',
		(int) 7 => 'Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Cri',
		(int) 10 => 'Husband',
		(int) 11 => 'Crime',
		(int) 12 => 'Cr',
		(int) 13 => 'Cr',
		(int) 14 => 'Cr',
		(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'Cr',
		(int) 17 => 'Accused',
		(int) 18 => 'Accused',
		(int) 19 => 'Accused',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr',
		(int) 21 => 'Cr'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2012',
		(int) 1 => '2012',
		(int) 2 => '2006',
		(int) 3 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 4 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 5 => '2012',
		(int) 6 => '2006',
		(int) 7 => '2012',
		(int) 8 => '2006',
		(int) 9 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 10 => '2012',
		(int) 11 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 12 => '2006',
		(int) 13 => '2012',
		(int) 14 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 15 => '1989',
		(int) 16 => '2007',
		(int) 17 => '2007',
		(int) 18 => '2007',
		(int) 19 => '1334',
		(int) 20 => '1335',
		(int) 21 => '12',
		(int) 22 => '1979',
		(int) 23 => '8/4/2006',
		(int) 24 => '2006',
		(int) 25 => '2012',
		(int) 26 => '2006',
		(int) 27 => '1989',
		(int) 28 => '2012',
		(int) 29 => '1989',
		(int) 30 => '1989',
		(int) 31 => '10/4/2006',
		(int) 32 => '1979',
		(int) 33 => '1973',
		(int) 34 => '1976',
		(int) 35 => '1889',
		(int) 36 => '1.Mad 35',
		(int) 37 => '194.Mad 508',
		(int) 38 => '21',
		(int) 39 => '1993',
		(int) 40 => 'Cal-DB)}.25',
		(int) 41 => '199.SC - 1744',
		(int) 42 => '1989',
		(int) 43 => '2012',
		(int) 44 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 45 => '2012',
		(int) 46 => '2012',
		(int) 47 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 48 => '2012'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli District',
		(int) 1 => 'the Accused No.2',
		(int) 2 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 4 => 'North Mount Road',
		(int) 5 => 'Accused',
		(int) 6 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 8 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 9 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 10 => 'Accused',
		(int) 11 => 'Tirunelveli District'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli',
		(int) 1 => 'Tirunelveli',
		(int) 2 => 'Tirunelveli'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 1 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 2 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 3 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 4 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Final Report',
		(int) 6 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First',
		(int) 1 => 'First',
		(int) 2 => 'first'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
		(int) 1 => 'the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about 8.30 p.m.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Town'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '964303',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-01-09',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL',
		'judgement' => 'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:</p><p>9. 1/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C (MD) No.536 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.1 o”</p><p>1. Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2. Mohamed @ Amjath Ali ... Petitioners Vs State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR), Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated 11/9/2012. !For Petitioners... Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah ^For respondent ... Mr.P.Kandasamy, GA (Criminal Side). - - - - - - - :ORDER The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (after splitting up the case) has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11/9/2012 in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>2. The Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on 11/9/2012 has among other things observed that &quot;..... In the considered opinion of this Court, a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution through the final report and the documents submitted therewith and therefore, the discrepancies in the investigation, if any, shall be disproved by the Accused during the trial stage&quot; and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>3. Assailing the order of the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 before this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order of the trial Court passed in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners name have not been mentioned in the First Information Report that the Defacto Complainant and the Second Accused are residents of the same street, but the Defacto Complainant mentioned in his complaint the Accused No.2 and 3 as two unnamed Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>5. Furthermore, according to the Petitioners, if the First Petitioner/A.2 has been involved in alleged occurrence, the Defacto Complainant could have given his name in the complaint itself and therefore, it is categorically clear that the prosecution story is a false one.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that no Identification Parade has been conducted by the prosecution and this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>7. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners advances an argument that it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioners only shouted at the time of alleged occurrence that 'to finish off the Defacto Complainant' and except these allegations, there are no overtact against the Petitioners.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>8. The prime contention projected on the side of the Petitioners is that there is no material to charge the Petitioners under Sections 341, 307 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also that as per the First Information Report, all the allegations have been made in respect of the First Accused alone.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>9. In any event, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that except the threatening words purported to have been uttered by the Petitioners, there are no other materials available on record for charging the Petitioners under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court ANANDA SEKARAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI {2007 (1) MLJ (Crl.) - 406}, wherein it is held as under:- &quot;A sensitive wife, aggrieved by the ordinary words, said to have been uttered by the husband &quot;nUe;jhy; nU my;yJ brj;J tpL&quot; meaning, 'whether you live or die' had committed suicide by pouring kerosene, setting ablaze, as spoken by P.W.2 creates a doubt genuinely whether that would come within the meaning of instigation and in my considered opinion &quot;no'. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.2's evidence is true, it fails to prove the ingredients required under Section 107 IPC., leading to 306 IPC or compelling the Court to infer the abetment as contemplated under law.&quot; 11. He also relies on the decision of this Court Ms.BATHIRAMMAL Vs. K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND OTEHRS {2007 (2) MLJ - 726}, wherein at page 728, it is observed and held as follows:- &quot;In the decision, Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that Section 511 makes attempt to commit an offence punishable. The offence attempted be one punishable by the Code with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are: (1). The offender should have done some act towards commission of the main offence (2). Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. Thus, attempt on the part of the accused is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511. RATIONES DECIDENDI As per Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the duty is cast upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record, he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. An attempt on the part of the accused towards commission of the main offence is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511 of IPC.&quot; 12. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision TAMILMARAN Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT {2007 (1) MLJ (Cri.) 1334}, wherein at page 1335, whereby and whereunder, it is observed thus:- &quot;The evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so, the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot; 13. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court DILAWAR BABU KURANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564), at page 567, wherein at paragraph 12, it is observed and held hereunder:- &quot;Now, the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said Section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (See Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another {1979 (3) SCC 5}.&quot; 14. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the facts of the prosecution are that on 8/4/2006, Kajiral walked on the asbestos sheet laying on the street near the Defacto Complainant's house, which was objected to by the Defacto Complainant and due to that a wordy quarrel has erected between them and that the said Kajiral informed the incident to the ambulance Driver Nainar Mohammed, who is the Town Secretary of TMMK and he called the Defacto Complainant Chinnathai and her husband and compelled them to seek apology to Kajiral. However, the Defacto Complainant and her husband had not apologised and due to that motive, on 9/4/2000, at about 8.30 p.m., the Defacto Complainant and her husband when they were returning from Tenkasi Town on Two Wheeler were waylaid on North Mount Road by the Accused with iron rod, assaulted the Defacto Complainant and her Husband and caused injuries. The other Accused viz., A.3 and A.4 instigated A.1 and A.2 to attack the Defacto Complainant's Husband and a case was registered in Crime No.276 of 2006 on the file of Tenkasi Police Station in respect of offences under Sections 341, 367 of IPC r/w. Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>15. It is to be pointed that the Revision Petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 has prayed for the issuance of an order by the trial Court to discharge them from the main case in S.C.No.95 of 2006. A perusal of the averments of the said Criminal M.P., shows that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners have taken a specific plea that in so far as they are concerned, the offences under Sections 341, 307, 109 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted at all. Further, it is the plea of the Petitioners that there is no material to charge them that they acted against the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST Community.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>16. That apart, in paragraph 6 of the Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012, the Petitioners have stated for charging them under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 'Mens Rea' of the Petitioners is to be necessarily proved and that the statement of the victim before the Doctor has to be considered and further, the Petitioners have no knowledge about the caste of the victim and they are acquainted with him. More importantly, the Petitioners in paragraph 9 of Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 12 have clearly mentioned that there is no specific overtact against them except 'shouting to finish him off'.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>17. It is to be borne in mind that the Respondent/Police has filed a Final Report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi against the four Accused under Sections 341, 347, 109 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears the First Accused Raja Mohammed Asan @ Raja is said to be a Juvenile.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>18. On the side of the Respondent/Police, reliance is placed on the confession of Accused Peer Mohammed Appa @ Beer Appa dated 10/4/2006 to the effect that the First Revision Petitioner (Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali) and the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali) have shouted at Subramani to finish him off and further, he beat him on left knee with iron pipe.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>19. At this stage, this Court, worth recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in SUPDT. AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND OTHERS {1979) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES - 274}, wherein at page 275, it has laid down as follows:- &quot;Where a case is at the stage of framing charges and the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced, the Magistrate has to consider the question of sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.&quot; 20. Also, this Court in the interest of Justice, cites the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court a. In the decision of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESH SINGH {AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018}, it is laid down as follows:- &quot;Reading Ss.227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.&quot; b. In the decision STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.H.ANNEGOWDA AND ANOTHER (AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held thus:- &quot;It is of no consequence that the Sessions Judge directed the accused to be 'discharged' because if the legal effect of the order was to acquit the accused, then the incorrect use of the expression 'discharge' by the Sessions Judge would not alter the legal position and convert the order of acquittal into one of discharge. 1976 Cri.L.J 80.(Kant). Affirmed. (1889) ILR 1.Mad 35 and AIR 194.Mad 508. Approved. The charge against the accused under the procedure prescribed in the new Code is to be framed for the first time by the Court of Session while according to the procedure prescribed under the old Code, the charge is framed by the committing Magistrate and the Court of Session is merely given the power to alter or amend the charge, if it thinks necessary to do so. It is, therefore, clear that when the Court of Session commences the trial of an accused, there is already before it a charge framed by the committing Magistrate and it is that charge, unless altered or amended under Section 226, that is required to be read out and explained to the accused and on which the plea of the accused is required to be taken.&quot; 21. In this connection, this Court pertinently makes a significant mention that Section 227 of Cr.P.C., is to be read with Section 228 of Cr.P.C. It is now a settled law that the charge sheet constitutes a prima facie evidence constituting the offence, so as to enable the trial Court to proceed further in the matter in issue. It cannot be gain said that the Court of law apart from looking into the relevant law has to take into account the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and then come to an independent and dispassionate conclusion whether any offence has been committed to frame charges against the concerned persons for trial before discharging the Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>22. A prima facie case is only to be seen, at the time of framing of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution at the time of framing of the charge and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the acquisition which they are making against the Accused persons are bound to be brought home against them. Equally, it is hazardous to act on the contradictions/discrepancies unless they are so patent and fatal and also glaring as to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without providing adequate opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>23. If there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be a groundless and futile exercise. Also, to force the Accused to undergo the ordeal of trial is a clear case of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is to sift and weigh the evidence for a specific purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the Accused are made out or not? Even grave suspicion is enough to frame the charge against the Accused as opined by this Court.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>24. In reality, a Court of Law need not undertake an elaborate or detailed enquiry in sifting and weighing the material confessional statement of the Accused. It is true that the Accused persons have right to seek the relief of discharge at any stage of the trial of the case. However, after the charge has been framed, it is not open to the Court of Law to discharge the Accused as per decision TAPATI BAG Vs. PATTIPABAN GHOSH {1993 Cr.L.J - 3932 (Cal-DB)}.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>25. Be that as it may, this Court also at this stage deems it appropriate to point out that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into and in fact, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SOM NATH THAPA (AIR 199.SC - 1744). In short, this Court opines that prima facie there are material available on record against the Petitioners to frame charges and it is always open to the Petitioners/Accused to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies of the prosecution case at the time of the trial of the main case. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the word 'ground' in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a main ground for conviction but a ground for putting the Accused on trial, as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD Vs. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORADIA {(1989) 1 SCC 71.(721). Looking at from any angle, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court after going through the contents of the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court when it has dismissed Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 (Discharge Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>26. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. mvs To 1. The Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR),Tirunelveli 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '964303'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 107 IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 511',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 226',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 16 => 'Section 228',
			(int) 17 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 227',
			(int) 19 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
			(int) 20 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1/2013',
			(int) 1 => '2',
			(int) 2 => '3',
			(int) 3 => 'two',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '307',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '1989.10',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '406',
			(int) 11 => '306',
			(int) 12 => '11',
			(int) 13 => '2',
			(int) 14 => '728',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => '2',
			(int) 17 => '12',
			(int) 18 => '1',
			(int) 19 => '13',
			(int) 20 => '567',
			(int) 21 => 'two',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '5}.&quot',
			(int) 24 => '14',
			(int) 25 => '9/4/2000',
			(int) 26 => 'Two',
			(int) 27 => '367',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '1989.15',
			(int) 30 => '307',
			(int) 31 => '109',
			(int) 32 => '2',
			(int) 33 => '6',
			(int) 34 => '2',
			(int) 35 => '9',
			(int) 36 => '12',
			(int) 37 => 'four',
			(int) 38 => '347',
			(int) 39 => '109',
			(int) 40 => '2',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '275',
			(int) 43 => '228',
			(int) 44 => '20',
			(int) 45 => '228',
			(int) 46 => 'one',
			(int) 47 => '1',
			(int) 48 => '2'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'HONOURABLE',
			(int) 1 => 'R.C',
			(int) 2 => 'Sections 397',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'the Additional Sessions Court',
			(int) 5 => 'Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 6 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 7 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 8 => 'The Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 9 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Court',
			(int) 11 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
			(int) 12 => 'PCR Court',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 15 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 16 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 19 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 20 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 21 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 22 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 23 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 24 => 'the First Petitioner/A.2',
			(int) 25 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 26 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 29 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 30 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 31 => 'the Defacto Complainant'',
			(int) 32 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 33 => 'IPC',
			(int) 34 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 35 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 36 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 37 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 38 => 'The Learned Counsel',
			(int) 39 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 40 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 41 => 'IPC',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Court',
			(int) 44 => 'OTEHRS',
			(int) 45 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
			(int) 46 => 'the accused towards commission',
			(int) 47 => 'Court',
			(int) 48 => 'REP',
			(int) 49 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 50 => 'Court',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 53 => 'AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564',
			(int) 54 => 'Section',
			(int) 55 => 'Court',
			(int) 56 => 'Court',
			(int) 57 => 'Court',
			(int) 58 => 'See Union of India Vs',
			(int) 59 => 'the Learned Counsel',
			(int) 60 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 61 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 62 => 'Kajiral',
			(int) 63 => 'Kajiral',
			(int) 64 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 65 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 66 => 'Tenkasi',
			(int) 67 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
			(int) 68 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
			(int) 69 => 'Tenkasi Police Station',
			(int) 70 => 'Sections 341',
			(int) 71 => 'IPC',
			(int) 72 => 'the Revision Petitioners',
			(int) 73 => 'Court',
			(int) 74 => 'the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners',
			(int) 75 => 'Sections 341',
			(int) 76 => 'IPC',
			(int) 77 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 78 => 'the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST',
			(int) 79 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 80 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 81 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 82 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 83 => 'the Respondent/Police',
			(int) 84 => 'the Learned Judicial Magistrate',
			(int) 85 => 'Tenkasi',
			(int) 86 => 'Accused under Sections 341',
			(int) 87 => 'IPC',
			(int) 88 => 'the Respondent/Police',
			(int) 89 => 'the First Revision Petitioner',
			(int) 90 => 'Subramani',
			(int) 91 => 'Court',
			(int) 92 => 'Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 93 => 'WEST BENGAL Vs',
			(int) 94 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 95 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 96 => 'Court',
			(int) 97 => 'Justice',
			(int) 98 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 99 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018',
			(int) 100 => 'Court',
			(int) 101 => 'Court',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'KARNATAKA Vs',
			(int) 104 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357',
			(int) 105 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 106 => 'ILR',
			(int) 107 => 'AIR',
			(int) 108 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 109 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 110 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 111 => 'the Court of Session',
			(int) 112 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 113 => 'Court',
			(int) 114 => 'Court',
			(int) 115 => 'the Court of law apart',
			(int) 116 => 'Court',
			(int) 117 => 'the Court of Law',
			(int) 118 => 'Court',
			(int) 119 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 120 => 'Court',
			(int) 121 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 122 => 'the Petitioners/Accused',
			(int) 123 => 'Court',
			(int) 124 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
			(int) 125 => 'Court',
			(int) 126 => 'Court',
			(int) 127 => 'Discharge Application',
			(int) 128 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 129 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'Court',
			(int) 132 => 'Court',
			(int) 133 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
			(int) 134 => 'The Additional Sessions Court'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl',
			(int) 1 => 'o”1',
			(int) 2 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2',
			(int) 3 => 'Mohamed @',
			(int) 4 => 'Petitioners',
			(int) 5 => 'P.Kandasamy',
			(int) 6 => 'Accused',
			(int) 7 => 'stage&quot',
			(int) 8 => 'Law',
			(int) 9 => 'BATHIRAMMAL Vs',
			(int) 10 => 'Satvir Singh Vs',
			(int) 11 => 'Kumar Samal',
			(int) 12 => 'Driver Nainar Mohammed',
			(int) 13 => 'Criminal M.P.',
			(int) 14 => 'Mens Rea'',
			(int) 15 => 'Mohammed Asan @ Raja',
			(int) 16 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali',
			(int) 17 => 'S.227',
			(int) 18 => 'L.J 80.(Kant',
			(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'MD',
			(int) 1 => 'Cr',
			(int) 2 => 'Cr',
			(int) 3 => 'Cr',
			(int) 4 => 'Cr',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'K.KALYANASUNDARAM',
			(int) 7 => 'Cr',
			(int) 8 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 9 => 'Cri',
			(int) 10 => 'Husband',
			(int) 11 => 'Crime',
			(int) 12 => 'Cr',
			(int) 13 => 'Cr',
			(int) 14 => 'Cr',
			(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 16 => 'Cr',
			(int) 17 => 'Accused',
			(int) 18 => 'Accused',
			(int) 19 => 'Accused',
			(int) 20 => 'Cr',
			(int) 21 => 'Cr'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2012',
			(int) 1 => '2012',
			(int) 2 => '2006',
			(int) 3 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 4 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 5 => '2012',
			(int) 6 => '2006',
			(int) 7 => '2012',
			(int) 8 => '2006',
			(int) 9 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 10 => '2012',
			(int) 11 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 12 => '2006',
			(int) 13 => '2012',
			(int) 14 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 15 => '1989',
			(int) 16 => '2007',
			(int) 17 => '2007',
			(int) 18 => '2007',
			(int) 19 => '1334',
			(int) 20 => '1335',
			(int) 21 => '12',
			(int) 22 => '1979',
			(int) 23 => '8/4/2006',
			(int) 24 => '2006',
			(int) 25 => '2012',
			(int) 26 => '2006',
			(int) 27 => '1989',
			(int) 28 => '2012',
			(int) 29 => '1989',
			(int) 30 => '1989',
			(int) 31 => '10/4/2006',
			(int) 32 => '1979',
			(int) 33 => '1973',
			(int) 34 => '1976',
			(int) 35 => '1889',
			(int) 36 => '1.Mad 35',
			(int) 37 => '194.Mad 508',
			(int) 38 => '21',
			(int) 39 => '1993',
			(int) 40 => 'Cal-DB)}.25',
			(int) 41 => '199.SC - 1744',
			(int) 42 => '1989',
			(int) 43 => '2012',
			(int) 44 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 45 => '2012',
			(int) 46 => '2012',
			(int) 47 => '11/9/2012',
			(int) 48 => '2012'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli District',
			(int) 1 => 'the Accused No.2',
			(int) 2 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 4 => 'North Mount Road',
			(int) 5 => 'Accused',
			(int) 6 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 8 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 9 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 10 => 'Accused',
			(int) 11 => 'Tirunelveli District'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli',
			(int) 1 => 'Tirunelveli',
			(int) 2 => 'Tirunelveli'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 1 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 2 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 3 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 4 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
			(int) 5 => 'Final Report',
			(int) 6 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'First',
			(int) 1 => 'First',
			(int) 2 => 'first'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
			(int) 1 => 'the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about 8.30 p.m.'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Town'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '964303',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-01-09',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL',
			'judgement' => 'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:</p><p>9. 1/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C (MD) No.536 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.1 o”</p><p>1. Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2. Mohamed @ Amjath Ali ... Petitioners Vs State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR), Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated 11/9/2012. !For Petitioners... Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah ^For respondent ... Mr.P.Kandasamy, GA (Criminal Side). - - - - - - - :ORDER The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (after splitting up the case) has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11/9/2012 in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>2. The Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on 11/9/2012 has among other things observed that &quot;..... In the considered opinion of this Court, a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution through the final report and the documents submitted therewith and therefore, the discrepancies in the investigation, if any, shall be disproved by the Accused during the trial stage&quot; and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>3. Assailing the order of the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 before this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order of the trial Court passed in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners name have not been mentioned in the First Information Report that the Defacto Complainant and the Second Accused are residents of the same street, but the Defacto Complainant mentioned in his complaint the Accused No.2 and 3 as two unnamed Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>5. Furthermore, according to the Petitioners, if the First Petitioner/A.2 has been involved in alleged occurrence, the Defacto Complainant could have given his name in the complaint itself and therefore, it is categorically clear that the prosecution story is a false one.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that no Identification Parade has been conducted by the prosecution and this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>7. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners advances an argument that it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioners only shouted at the time of alleged occurrence that 'to finish off the Defacto Complainant' and except these allegations, there are no overtact against the Petitioners.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>8. The prime contention projected on the side of the Petitioners is that there is no material to charge the Petitioners under Sections 341, 307 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also that as per the First Information Report, all the allegations have been made in respect of the First Accused alone.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>9. In any event, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that except the threatening words purported to have been uttered by the Petitioners, there are no other materials available on record for charging the Petitioners under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court ANANDA SEKARAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI {2007 (1) MLJ (Crl.) - 406}, wherein it is held as under:- &quot;A sensitive wife, aggrieved by the ordinary words, said to have been uttered by the husband &quot;nUe;jhy; nU my;yJ brj;J tpL&quot; meaning, 'whether you live or die' had committed suicide by pouring kerosene, setting ablaze, as spoken by P.W.2 creates a doubt genuinely whether that would come within the meaning of instigation and in my considered opinion &quot;no'. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.2's evidence is true, it fails to prove the ingredients required under Section 107 IPC., leading to 306 IPC or compelling the Court to infer the abetment as contemplated under law.&quot; 11. He also relies on the decision of this Court Ms.BATHIRAMMAL Vs. K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND OTEHRS {2007 (2) MLJ - 726}, wherein at page 728, it is observed and held as follows:- &quot;In the decision, Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that Section 511 makes attempt to commit an offence punishable. The offence attempted be one punishable by the Code with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are: (1). The offender should have done some act towards commission of the main offence (2). Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. Thus, attempt on the part of the accused is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511. RATIONES DECIDENDI As per Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the duty is cast upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record, he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. An attempt on the part of the accused towards commission of the main offence is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511 of IPC.&quot; 12. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision TAMILMARAN Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT {2007 (1) MLJ (Cri.) 1334}, wherein at page 1335, whereby and whereunder, it is observed thus:- &quot;The evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so, the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot; 13. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court DILAWAR BABU KURANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564), at page 567, wherein at paragraph 12, it is observed and held hereunder:- &quot;Now, the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said Section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (See Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another {1979 (3) SCC 5}.&quot; 14. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the facts of the prosecution are that on 8/4/2006, Kajiral walked on the asbestos sheet laying on the street near the Defacto Complainant's house, which was objected to by the Defacto Complainant and due to that a wordy quarrel has erected between them and that the said Kajiral informed the incident to the ambulance Driver Nainar Mohammed, who is the Town Secretary of TMMK and he called the Defacto Complainant Chinnathai and her husband and compelled them to seek apology to Kajiral. However, the Defacto Complainant and her husband had not apologised and due to that motive, on 9/4/2000, at about 8.30 p.m., the Defacto Complainant and her husband when they were returning from Tenkasi Town on Two Wheeler were waylaid on North Mount Road by the Accused with iron rod, assaulted the Defacto Complainant and her Husband and caused injuries. The other Accused viz., A.3 and A.4 instigated A.1 and A.2 to attack the Defacto Complainant's Husband and a case was registered in Crime No.276 of 2006 on the file of Tenkasi Police Station in respect of offences under Sections 341, 367 of IPC r/w. Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>15. It is to be pointed that the Revision Petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 has prayed for the issuance of an order by the trial Court to discharge them from the main case in S.C.No.95 of 2006. A perusal of the averments of the said Criminal M.P., shows that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners have taken a specific plea that in so far as they are concerned, the offences under Sections 341, 307, 109 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted at all. Further, it is the plea of the Petitioners that there is no material to charge them that they acted against the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST Community.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>16. That apart, in paragraph 6 of the Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012, the Petitioners have stated for charging them under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 'Mens Rea' of the Petitioners is to be necessarily proved and that the statement of the victim before the Doctor has to be considered and further, the Petitioners have no knowledge about the caste of the victim and they are acquainted with him. More importantly, the Petitioners in paragraph 9 of Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 12 have clearly mentioned that there is no specific overtact against them except 'shouting to finish him off'.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>17. It is to be borne in mind that the Respondent/Police has filed a Final Report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi against the four Accused under Sections 341, 347, 109 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears the First Accused Raja Mohammed Asan @ Raja is said to be a Juvenile.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>18. On the side of the Respondent/Police, reliance is placed on the confession of Accused Peer Mohammed Appa @ Beer Appa dated 10/4/2006 to the effect that the First Revision Petitioner (Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali) and the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali) have shouted at Subramani to finish him off and further, he beat him on left knee with iron pipe.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>19. At this stage, this Court, worth recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in SUPDT. AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND OTHERS {1979) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES - 274}, wherein at page 275, it has laid down as follows:- &quot;Where a case is at the stage of framing charges and the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced, the Magistrate has to consider the question of sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.&quot; 20. Also, this Court in the interest of Justice, cites the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court a. In the decision of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESH SINGH {AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018}, it is laid down as follows:- &quot;Reading Ss.227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.&quot; b. In the decision STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.H.ANNEGOWDA AND ANOTHER (AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held thus:- &quot;It is of no consequence that the Sessions Judge directed the accused to be 'discharged' because if the legal effect of the order was to acquit the accused, then the incorrect use of the expression 'discharge' by the Sessions Judge would not alter the legal position and convert the order of acquittal into one of discharge. 1976 Cri.L.J 80.(Kant). Affirmed. (1889) ILR 1.Mad 35 and AIR 194.Mad 508. Approved. The charge against the accused under the procedure prescribed in the new Code is to be framed for the first time by the Court of Session while according to the procedure prescribed under the old Code, the charge is framed by the committing Magistrate and the Court of Session is merely given the power to alter or amend the charge, if it thinks necessary to do so. It is, therefore, clear that when the Court of Session commences the trial of an accused, there is already before it a charge framed by the committing Magistrate and it is that charge, unless altered or amended under Section 226, that is required to be read out and explained to the accused and on which the plea of the accused is required to be taken.&quot; 21. In this connection, this Court pertinently makes a significant mention that Section 227 of Cr.P.C., is to be read with Section 228 of Cr.P.C. It is now a settled law that the charge sheet constitutes a prima facie evidence constituting the offence, so as to enable the trial Court to proceed further in the matter in issue. It cannot be gain said that the Court of law apart from looking into the relevant law has to take into account the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and then come to an independent and dispassionate conclusion whether any offence has been committed to frame charges against the concerned persons for trial before discharging the Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>22. A prima facie case is only to be seen, at the time of framing of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution at the time of framing of the charge and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the acquisition which they are making against the Accused persons are bound to be brought home against them. Equally, it is hazardous to act on the contradictions/discrepancies unless they are so patent and fatal and also glaring as to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without providing adequate opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>23. If there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be a groundless and futile exercise. Also, to force the Accused to undergo the ordeal of trial is a clear case of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is to sift and weigh the evidence for a specific purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the Accused are made out or not? Even grave suspicion is enough to frame the charge against the Accused as opined by this Court.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>24. In reality, a Court of Law need not undertake an elaborate or detailed enquiry in sifting and weighing the material confessional statement of the Accused. It is true that the Accused persons have right to seek the relief of discharge at any stage of the trial of the case. However, after the charge has been framed, it is not open to the Court of Law to discharge the Accused as per decision TAPATI BAG Vs. PATTIPABAN GHOSH {1993 Cr.L.J - 3932 (Cal-DB)}.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>25. Be that as it may, this Court also at this stage deems it appropriate to point out that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into and in fact, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SOM NATH THAPA (AIR 199.SC - 1744). In short, this Court opines that prima facie there are material available on record against the Petitioners to frame charges and it is always open to the Petitioners/Accused to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies of the prosecution case at the time of the trial of the main case. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the word 'ground' in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a main ground for conviction but a ground for putting the Accused on trial, as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD Vs. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORADIA {(1989) 1 SCC 71.(721). Looking at from any angle, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court after going through the contents of the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court when it has dismissed Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 (Discharge Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>26. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. mvs To 1. The Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR),Tirunelveli 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '964303'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 107 IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 511',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 226',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 16 => 'Section 228',
		(int) 17 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 227',
		(int) 19 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code',
		(int) 20 => 'the Criminal Procedure Code'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1/2013',
		(int) 1 => '2',
		(int) 2 => '3',
		(int) 3 => 'two',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '307',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '1989.10',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '406',
		(int) 11 => '306',
		(int) 12 => '11',
		(int) 13 => '2',
		(int) 14 => '728',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => '2',
		(int) 17 => '12',
		(int) 18 => '1',
		(int) 19 => '13',
		(int) 20 => '567',
		(int) 21 => 'two',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '5}.&quot',
		(int) 24 => '14',
		(int) 25 => '9/4/2000',
		(int) 26 => 'Two',
		(int) 27 => '367',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '1989.15',
		(int) 30 => '307',
		(int) 31 => '109',
		(int) 32 => '2',
		(int) 33 => '6',
		(int) 34 => '2',
		(int) 35 => '9',
		(int) 36 => '12',
		(int) 37 => 'four',
		(int) 38 => '347',
		(int) 39 => '109',
		(int) 40 => '2',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '275',
		(int) 43 => '228',
		(int) 44 => '20',
		(int) 45 => '228',
		(int) 46 => 'one',
		(int) 47 => '1',
		(int) 48 => '2'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'HONOURABLE',
		(int) 1 => 'R.C',
		(int) 2 => 'Sections 397',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'the Additional Sessions Court',
		(int) 5 => 'Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 6 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 7 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 8 => 'The Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 9 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Court',
		(int) 11 => 'the Learned Second Additional Sessions',
		(int) 12 => 'PCR Court',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 15 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 16 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 19 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 20 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 21 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 22 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 23 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 24 => 'the First Petitioner/A.2',
		(int) 25 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 26 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 29 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 30 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 31 => 'the Defacto Complainant'',
		(int) 32 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 33 => 'IPC',
		(int) 34 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 35 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 36 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 37 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 38 => 'The Learned Counsel',
		(int) 39 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 40 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 41 => 'IPC',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Court',
		(int) 44 => 'OTEHRS',
		(int) 45 => 'the Hon'ble Apex Court',
		(int) 46 => 'the accused towards commission',
		(int) 47 => 'Court',
		(int) 48 => 'REP',
		(int) 49 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 50 => 'Court',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 53 => 'AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564',
		(int) 54 => 'Section',
		(int) 55 => 'Court',
		(int) 56 => 'Court',
		(int) 57 => 'Court',
		(int) 58 => 'See Union of India Vs',
		(int) 59 => 'the Learned Counsel',
		(int) 60 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 61 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 62 => 'Kajiral',
		(int) 63 => 'Kajiral',
		(int) 64 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 65 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 66 => 'Tenkasi',
		(int) 67 => 'the Defacto Complainant',
		(int) 68 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
		(int) 69 => 'Tenkasi Police Station',
		(int) 70 => 'Sections 341',
		(int) 71 => 'IPC',
		(int) 72 => 'the Revision Petitioners',
		(int) 73 => 'Court',
		(int) 74 => 'the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners',
		(int) 75 => 'Sections 341',
		(int) 76 => 'IPC',
		(int) 77 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 78 => 'the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST',
		(int) 79 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 80 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 81 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 82 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 83 => 'the Respondent/Police',
		(int) 84 => 'the Learned Judicial Magistrate',
		(int) 85 => 'Tenkasi',
		(int) 86 => 'Accused under Sections 341',
		(int) 87 => 'IPC',
		(int) 88 => 'the Respondent/Police',
		(int) 89 => 'the First Revision Petitioner',
		(int) 90 => 'Subramani',
		(int) 91 => 'Court',
		(int) 92 => 'Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 93 => 'WEST BENGAL Vs',
		(int) 94 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 95 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 96 => 'Court',
		(int) 97 => 'Justice',
		(int) 98 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 99 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018',
		(int) 100 => 'Court',
		(int) 101 => 'Court',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'KARNATAKA Vs',
		(int) 104 => 'AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357',
		(int) 105 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 106 => 'ILR',
		(int) 107 => 'AIR',
		(int) 108 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 109 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 110 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 111 => 'the Court of Session',
		(int) 112 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 113 => 'Court',
		(int) 114 => 'Court',
		(int) 115 => 'the Court of law apart',
		(int) 116 => 'Court',
		(int) 117 => 'the Court of Law',
		(int) 118 => 'Court',
		(int) 119 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 120 => 'Court',
		(int) 121 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 122 => 'the Petitioners/Accused',
		(int) 123 => 'Court',
		(int) 124 => 'the Honourable Supreme Court',
		(int) 125 => 'Court',
		(int) 126 => 'Court',
		(int) 127 => 'Discharge Application',
		(int) 128 => 'the Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 129 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'Court',
		(int) 132 => 'Court',
		(int) 133 => 'this Criminal Revision Petition',
		(int) 134 => 'The Additional Sessions Court'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl',
		(int) 1 => 'o”1',
		(int) 2 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2',
		(int) 3 => 'Mohamed @',
		(int) 4 => 'Petitioners',
		(int) 5 => 'P.Kandasamy',
		(int) 6 => 'Accused',
		(int) 7 => 'stage&quot',
		(int) 8 => 'Law',
		(int) 9 => 'BATHIRAMMAL Vs',
		(int) 10 => 'Satvir Singh Vs',
		(int) 11 => 'Kumar Samal',
		(int) 12 => 'Driver Nainar Mohammed',
		(int) 13 => 'Criminal M.P.',
		(int) 14 => 'Mens Rea'',
		(int) 15 => 'Mohammed Asan @ Raja',
		(int) 16 => 'Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali',
		(int) 17 => 'S.227',
		(int) 18 => 'L.J 80.(Kant',
		(int) 19 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'MD',
		(int) 1 => 'Cr',
		(int) 2 => 'Cr',
		(int) 3 => 'Cr',
		(int) 4 => 'Cr',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'K.KALYANASUNDARAM',
		(int) 7 => 'Cr',
		(int) 8 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 9 => 'Cri',
		(int) 10 => 'Husband',
		(int) 11 => 'Crime',
		(int) 12 => 'Cr',
		(int) 13 => 'Cr',
		(int) 14 => 'Cr',
		(int) 15 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 16 => 'Cr',
		(int) 17 => 'Accused',
		(int) 18 => 'Accused',
		(int) 19 => 'Accused',
		(int) 20 => 'Cr',
		(int) 21 => 'Cr'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2012',
		(int) 1 => '2012',
		(int) 2 => '2006',
		(int) 3 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 4 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 5 => '2012',
		(int) 6 => '2006',
		(int) 7 => '2012',
		(int) 8 => '2006',
		(int) 9 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 10 => '2012',
		(int) 11 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 12 => '2006',
		(int) 13 => '2012',
		(int) 14 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 15 => '1989',
		(int) 16 => '2007',
		(int) 17 => '2007',
		(int) 18 => '2007',
		(int) 19 => '1334',
		(int) 20 => '1335',
		(int) 21 => '12',
		(int) 22 => '1979',
		(int) 23 => '8/4/2006',
		(int) 24 => '2006',
		(int) 25 => '2012',
		(int) 26 => '2006',
		(int) 27 => '1989',
		(int) 28 => '2012',
		(int) 29 => '1989',
		(int) 30 => '1989',
		(int) 31 => '10/4/2006',
		(int) 32 => '1979',
		(int) 33 => '1973',
		(int) 34 => '1976',
		(int) 35 => '1889',
		(int) 36 => '1.Mad 35',
		(int) 37 => '194.Mad 508',
		(int) 38 => '21',
		(int) 39 => '1993',
		(int) 40 => 'Cal-DB)}.25',
		(int) 41 => '199.SC - 1744',
		(int) 42 => '1989',
		(int) 43 => '2012',
		(int) 44 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 45 => '2012',
		(int) 46 => '2012',
		(int) 47 => '11/9/2012',
		(int) 48 => '2012'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli District',
		(int) 1 => 'the Accused No.2',
		(int) 2 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 4 => 'North Mount Road',
		(int) 5 => 'Accused',
		(int) 6 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 7 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 8 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 9 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 10 => 'Accused',
		(int) 11 => 'Tirunelveli District'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tirunelveli',
		(int) 1 => 'Tirunelveli',
		(int) 2 => 'Tirunelveli'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 1 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 2 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 3 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 4 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act',
		(int) 5 => 'Final Report',
		(int) 6 => 'The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'First',
		(int) 1 => 'First',
		(int) 2 => 'first'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Defacto Complainant's',
		(int) 1 => 'the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about 8.30 p.m.'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Town'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '964303',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => '1. Seyed Ali @ KaraThe Ali Vs. State',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-01-09',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL',
		'judgement' => 'BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:</p><p>9. 1/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C (MD) No.536 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.1 o”</p><p>1. Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2. Mohamed @ Amjath Ali ... Petitioners Vs State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR), Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated 11/9/2012. !For Petitioners... Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah ^For respondent ... Mr.P.Kandasamy, GA (Criminal Side). - - - - - - - :ORDER The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (after splitting up the case) has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 11/9/2012 in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 passed by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>2. The Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, while passing the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 on 11/9/2012 has among other things observed that &quot;..... In the considered opinion of this Court, a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution through the final report and the documents submitted therewith and therefore, the discrepancies in the investigation, if any, shall be disproved by the Accused during the trial stage&quot; and resultantly, dismissed the Petition.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>3. Assailing the order of the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 in S.C.No.95 of 2006 before this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order of the trial Court passed in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>4. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners name have not been mentioned in the First Information Report that the Defacto Complainant and the Second Accused are residents of the same street, but the Defacto Complainant mentioned in his complaint the Accused No.2 and 3 as two unnamed Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>5. Furthermore, according to the Petitioners, if the First Petitioner/A.2 has been involved in alleged occurrence, the Defacto Complainant could have given his name in the complaint itself and therefore, it is categorically clear that the prosecution story is a false one.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioners is that no Identification Parade has been conducted by the prosecution and this vital aspect has not been taken into account by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>7. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners advances an argument that it is the case of the prosecution that the Petitioners only shouted at the time of alleged occurrence that 'to finish off the Defacto Complainant' and except these allegations, there are no overtact against the Petitioners.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>8. The prime contention projected on the side of the Petitioners is that there is no material to charge the Petitioners under Sections 341, 307 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also that as per the First Information Report, all the allegations have been made in respect of the First Accused alone.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>9. In any event, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that except the threatening words purported to have been uttered by the Petitioners, there are no other materials available on record for charging the Petitioners under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court ANANDA SEKARAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI {2007 (1) MLJ (Crl.) - 406}, wherein it is held as under:- &quot;A sensitive wife, aggrieved by the ordinary words, said to have been uttered by the husband &quot;nUe;jhy; nU my;yJ brj;J tpL&quot; meaning, 'whether you live or die' had committed suicide by pouring kerosene, setting ablaze, as spoken by P.W.2 creates a doubt genuinely whether that would come within the meaning of instigation and in my considered opinion &quot;no'. Therefore, even assuming that P.W.2's evidence is true, it fails to prove the ingredients required under Section 107 IPC., leading to 306 IPC or compelling the Court to infer the abetment as contemplated under law.&quot; 11. He also relies on the decision of this Court Ms.BATHIRAMMAL Vs. K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND OTEHRS {2007 (2) MLJ - 726}, wherein at page 728, it is observed and held as follows:- &quot;In the decision, Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that Section 511 makes attempt to commit an offence punishable. The offence attempted be one punishable by the Code with imprisonment. The conditions stipulated in the provision for completion of the said offence are: (1). The offender should have done some act towards commission of the main offence (2). Such an attempt is not expressly covered as a penal provision elsewhere in the Code. Thus, attempt on the part of the accused is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511. RATIONES DECIDENDI As per Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the duty is cast upon the trial Judge to apply his mind to the material on record and if on examination of the record, he does not find sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he must discharge him. An attempt on the part of the accused towards commission of the main offence is the sine qua non for the offence under Section 511 of IPC.&quot; 12. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision TAMILMARAN Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MANNARGUDI TALUK, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT {2007 (1) MLJ (Cri.) 1334}, wherein at page 1335, whereby and whereunder, it is observed thus:- &quot;The evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so, the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot; 13. He also seeks in aid of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court DILAWAR BABU KURANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564), at page 567, wherein at paragraph 12, it is observed and held hereunder:- &quot;Now, the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said Section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (See Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another {1979 (3) SCC 5}.&quot; 14. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the facts of the prosecution are that on 8/4/2006, Kajiral walked on the asbestos sheet laying on the street near the Defacto Complainant's house, which was objected to by the Defacto Complainant and due to that a wordy quarrel has erected between them and that the said Kajiral informed the incident to the ambulance Driver Nainar Mohammed, who is the Town Secretary of TMMK and he called the Defacto Complainant Chinnathai and her husband and compelled them to seek apology to Kajiral. However, the Defacto Complainant and her husband had not apologised and due to that motive, on 9/4/2000, at about 8.30 p.m., the Defacto Complainant and her husband when they were returning from Tenkasi Town on Two Wheeler were waylaid on North Mount Road by the Accused with iron rod, assaulted the Defacto Complainant and her Husband and caused injuries. The other Accused viz., A.3 and A.4 instigated A.1 and A.2 to attack the Defacto Complainant's Husband and a case was registered in Crime No.276 of 2006 on the file of Tenkasi Police Station in respect of offences under Sections 341, 367 of IPC r/w. Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>15. It is to be pointed that the Revision Petitioners in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 has prayed for the issuance of an order by the trial Court to discharge them from the main case in S.C.No.95 of 2006. A perusal of the averments of the said Criminal M.P., shows that the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners have taken a specific plea that in so far as they are concerned, the offences under Sections 341, 307, 109 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted at all. Further, it is the plea of the Petitioners that there is no material to charge them that they acted against the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST Community.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>16. That apart, in paragraph 6 of the Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012, the Petitioners have stated for charging them under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 'Mens Rea' of the Petitioners is to be necessarily proved and that the statement of the victim before the Doctor has to be considered and further, the Petitioners have no knowledge about the caste of the victim and they are acquainted with him. More importantly, the Petitioners in paragraph 9 of Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 12 have clearly mentioned that there is no specific overtact against them except 'shouting to finish him off'.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>17. It is to be borne in mind that the Respondent/Police has filed a Final Report before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi against the four Accused under Sections 341, 347, 109 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears the First Accused Raja Mohammed Asan @ Raja is said to be a Juvenile.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>18. On the side of the Respondent/Police, reliance is placed on the confession of Accused Peer Mohammed Appa @ Beer Appa dated 10/4/2006 to the effect that the First Revision Petitioner (Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali) and the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali) have shouted at Subramani to finish him off and further, he beat him on left knee with iron pipe.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>19. At this stage, this Court, worth recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in SUPDT. AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA AND OTHERS {1979) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES - 274}, wherein at page 275, it has laid down as follows:- &quot;Where a case is at the stage of framing charges and the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced, the Magistrate has to consider the question of sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused on a general consideration of materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.&quot; 20. Also, this Court in the interest of Justice, cites the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court a. In the decision of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESH SINGH {AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018}, it is laid down as follows:- &quot;Reading Ss.227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.&quot; b. In the decision STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.H.ANNEGOWDA AND ANOTHER (AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed and held thus:- &quot;It is of no consequence that the Sessions Judge directed the accused to be 'discharged' because if the legal effect of the order was to acquit the accused, then the incorrect use of the expression 'discharge' by the Sessions Judge would not alter the legal position and convert the order of acquittal into one of discharge. 1976 Cri.L.J 80.(Kant). Affirmed. (1889) ILR 1.Mad 35 and AIR 194.Mad 508. Approved. The charge against the accused under the procedure prescribed in the new Code is to be framed for the first time by the Court of Session while according to the procedure prescribed under the old Code, the charge is framed by the committing Magistrate and the Court of Session is merely given the power to alter or amend the charge, if it thinks necessary to do so. It is, therefore, clear that when the Court of Session commences the trial of an accused, there is already before it a charge framed by the committing Magistrate and it is that charge, unless altered or amended under Section 226, that is required to be read out and explained to the accused and on which the plea of the accused is required to be taken.&quot; 21. In this connection, this Court pertinently makes a significant mention that Section 227 of Cr.P.C., is to be read with Section 228 of Cr.P.C. It is now a settled law that the charge sheet constitutes a prima facie evidence constituting the offence, so as to enable the trial Court to proceed further in the matter in issue. It cannot be gain said that the Court of law apart from looking into the relevant law has to take into account the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and then come to an independent and dispassionate conclusion whether any offence has been committed to frame charges against the concerned persons for trial before discharging the Accused.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>22. A prima facie case is only to be seen, at the time of framing of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution at the time of framing of the charge and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the acquisition which they are making against the Accused persons are bound to be brought home against them. Equally, it is hazardous to act on the contradictions/discrepancies unless they are so patent and fatal and also glaring as to affect the credibility of the prosecution case without providing adequate opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>23. If there is no legal evidence, then framing of charge would be a groundless and futile exercise. Also, to force the Accused to undergo the ordeal of trial is a clear case of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial Court is to sift and weigh the evidence for a specific purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the Accused are made out or not? Even grave suspicion is enough to frame the charge against the Accused as opined by this Court.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>24. In reality, a Court of Law need not undertake an elaborate or detailed enquiry in sifting and weighing the material confessional statement of the Accused. It is true that the Accused persons have right to seek the relief of discharge at any stage of the trial of the case. However, after the charge has been framed, it is not open to the Court of Law to discharge the Accused as per decision TAPATI BAG Vs. PATTIPABAN GHOSH {1993 Cr.L.J - 3932 (Cal-DB)}.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>25. Be that as it may, this Court also at this stage deems it appropriate to point out that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value of material on record cannot be gone into and in fact, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SOM NATH THAPA (AIR 199.SC - 1744). In short, this Court opines that prima facie there are material available on record against the Petitioners to frame charges and it is always open to the Petitioners/Accused to point out the inconsistencies, discrepancies of the prosecution case at the time of the trial of the main case. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the word 'ground' in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a main ground for conviction but a ground for putting the Accused on trial, as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD Vs. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORADIA {(1989) 1 SCC 71.(721). Looking at from any angle, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court after going through the contents of the impugned order in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court when it has dismissed Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 (Discharge Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits.</p><p style='text-align: justify;'>26. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1312 of 2012 dated 11/9/2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. mvs To 1. The Additional Sessions Court not II, (PCR),Tirunelveli 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tenkasi Sub-division Tirunelveli District.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '964303'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 3, Section 107 IPC, Section 511, Section 511, Section 227, Section 511, Section 227 of the Code itself.&quot, Section 227, Section 227, Section 3, Section 3, Section 3, Section 3, Section 227, Section 226, Section 227, Section 228, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 227, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code

CARDINAL: 1/2013, 2, 3, two, 341, 307, 2, 2, 1989.10, 1, 406, 306, 11, 2, 728, 1, 2, 12, 1, 13, 567, two, 3, 5}.&quot, 14, 9/4/2000, Two, 367, 2, 1989.15, 307, 109, 2, 6, 2, 9, 12, four, 347, 109, 2, 4, 275, 228, 20, 228, one, 1, 2

ORG: HONOURABLE, R.C, Sections 397, Court, the Additional Sessions Court, Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Second Additional Sessions, PCR Court, The Learned Second Additional Sessions, PCR Court, Court, the Learned Second Additional Sessions, PCR Court, Court, the Criminal Revision Petition, the Learned Counsel, Petitioners, Court, the Learned Counsel, Petitioners, Petitioners, the First Information Report, the Defacto Complainant, Petitioners, the First Petitioner/A.2, the Defacto Complainant, Petitioners, Court, the Learned Counsel, Petitioners, Petitioners, the Defacto Complainant', Petitioners, IPC, the First Information Report, the Learned Counsel, Petitioners, Petitioners, The Learned Counsel, Petitioners, MLJ, IPC, Court, Court, OTEHRS, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the accused towards commission, Court, REP, MLJ, Court, Court, the Honourable Supreme Court, AIR 200.SUPREME COURT - 564, Section, Court, Court, Court, See Union of India Vs, the Learned Counsel, Petitioners, the Defacto Complainant, Kajiral, Kajiral, the Defacto Complainant, the Defacto Complainant, Tenkasi, the Defacto Complainant, the Defacto Complainant's, Tenkasi Police Station, Sections 341, IPC, the Revision Petitioners, Court, the Revision Petitioners/Petitioners, Sections 341, IPC, Petitioners, the Defacto Complainant to SC/ST, Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, Petitioners, the Respondent/Police, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, Accused under Sections 341, IPC, the Respondent/Police, the First Revision Petitioner, Subramani, Court, Honourable Supreme Court, WEST BENGAL Vs, Magistrate, Magistrate, Court, Justice, the Honourable Supreme Court, AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 2018, Court, Court, Court, KARNATAKA Vs, AIR 197.SUPREME COURT - 357, the Honourable Supreme Court, ILR, AIR, the Court of Session, Magistrate, the Court of Session, the Court of Session, Magistrate, Court, Court, the Court of law apart, Court, the Court of Law, Court, the Honourable Supreme Court, Court, Petitioners, the Petitioners/Accused, Court, the Honourable Supreme Court, Court, Court, Discharge Application, the Criminal Revision Petition, this Criminal Revision Petition, Court, Court, Court, this Criminal Revision Petition, The Additional Sessions Court

PERSON: JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl, o”1, Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali 2, Mohamed @, Petitioners, P.Kandasamy, Accused, stage&quot, Law, BATHIRAMMAL Vs, Satvir Singh Vs, Kumar Samal, Driver Nainar Mohammed, Criminal M.P., Mens Rea', Mohammed Asan @ Raja, Seyed Ali @ Karathe Ali, S.227, L.J 80.(Kant, P.C., Cr

GPE: MD, Cr, Cr, Cr, Cr, Cr, K.KALYANASUNDARAM, Cr, P.C., Cri, Husband, Crime, Cr, Cr, Cr, P.C., Cr, Accused, Accused, Accused, Cr, Cr

DATE: 2012, 2012, 2006, 11/9/2012, 11/9/2012, 2012, 2006, 2012, 2006, 11/9/2012, 2012, 11/9/2012, 2006, 2012, 11/9/2012, 1989, 2007, 2007, 2007, 1334, 1335, 12, 1979, 8/4/2006, 2006, 2012, 2006, 1989, 2012, 1989, 1989, 10/4/2006, 1979, 1973, 1976, 1889, 1.Mad 35, 194.Mad 508, 21, 1993, Cal-DB)}.25, 199.SC - 1744, 1989, 2012, 11/9/2012, 2012, 2012, 11/9/2012, 2012

LOC: Tirunelveli District, the Accused No.2, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Castes, North Mount Road, Accused, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Castes, Accused, Tirunelveli District

NORP: Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli

WORK_OF_ART: The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Final Report, The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

ORDINAL: First, First, first

FAC: the Defacto Complainant's, the Second Petitioner (Mohamed @ Amjath Ali

TIME: about 8.30 p.m.

PRODUCT: Town