Kodanadu Heist-Murder Case | Madras High Court Permits Accused to Examine Former CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala
The Madras High Court has permitted a criminal revision petition filed by three individuals accused in the Kodanadu heist and murder case. The petition sought approval to summon and examine former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami, V.K. Sasikala, and others as witnesses.
In 2017, the Kodanadu estate, owned by the late Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, was broken into. This incident was followed by the death of a security guard, three fatalities in road accidents, and the suicide of an estate employee responsible for the CCTV system. The case remains under adjudication before the District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in the Nilgiris.
Justice P. Velmurugan observed that the accused's application to summon witnesses was valid and would not unduly delay the trial, especially since further investigation had already been ordered. The court instructed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial expeditiously while ensuring both parties are given fair opportunities. “In view of the above, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial in accordance with the law after giving opportunities to both the parties. If the prosecution is required to examine any additional witnesses based on the further investigation, the trial should proceed accordingly. After the prosecution's examination of witnesses is concluded, the petitioners must be given an opportunity to examine the eight witnesses mentioned in the petition, viz., (i)Thiru. Edappadi K. Palanisami, (ii) Mrs.V.K.Sasikala Natarajan, (iii)Mrs.Elavarasi, (iv)Mr.N.V.Sudhakaran, (v)Mr.Shankar I.A.S., (vi) Mr.Murali Rambah, IPS Officer, (vii)Mr.Sajeevan and (viii)Mr.Sunil, on the side of the defence,” the court ordered.
The petitioners challenged the Sessions Judge’s earlier decision rejecting their plea to examine these witnesses. They argued that their fundamental right to present evidence in their defence had been ignored. The petitioners contended that this decision was arbitrary and violated Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Furthermore, they asserted that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, includes the right to a fair trial and just procedure. According to the petitioners, this provision ensures that the accused are afforded every opportunity to effectively contest the charges against them. Thus, the refusal to allow material witnesses undermined their defence.
In response, the State Government argued that the Sessions Judge had acted within the boundaries of the CrPC and upheld the interest of justice by ensuring that the trial progressed fairly and efficiently. The State contended that the petitioners' request failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 233 of the CrPC and appeared to be a strategy to delay proceedings without adding substantive value to the defence. The State submitted that Section 233 of the CrPC did not give an absolute right to the accused and did not mandate summoning of every witness that the accused wished to examine. It was further contended that the trial court possesses the discretion to deny such requests if the evidence sought is deemed irrelevant, unnecessary, or likely to result in undue delays in the proceedings.
The High Court noted the accused’s claims regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding the case, including allegations of police diversion to protect certain individuals. It observed that the trial court had failed to uncover the underlying facts by dismissing the petitioners’ plea. The court emphasized that both the prosecution and defence must have reasonable opportunities to present their cases. Denying this would violate fundamental legal principles and jeopardize the integrity of the trial. The court underlined that a fair trial necessitates ensuring due process for all parties involved.
“Denying the opportunity for both the prosecution and the defense to present their respective cases would likely constitute a violation of legal principles. This violation must be scrutinized carefully, as the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the justice system. The principle of a fair trial requires that both parties be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Any process that compromises this fundamental right undermines the integrity of the trial and impedes the pursuit of truth. Therefore, it is essential that all proceedings be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness and due process for all parties involved,” the court stated.
Considering the roles played by the witnesses sought to be examined, the court concluded that the accused's request was not frivolous. Consequently, it allowed the petition, permitting the examination of the witnesses.
Cause Title: Deepu and Others v State and Others
Case No: Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2021
Date: December-06-2024
Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan
[Read/Download order]
