The Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur in C.C.No.365 of 2005, dated 22.11.2006, acquitting the respondents /accused No. 1 to 5 for offences under Section 147, 452 and 427 I.P.C.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 04.09.2005 at 07.30 a.m. all the accused had trespassed into Sri Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Perumalpatti Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Srivilliputhur, due to previous enmity and had caused damage by throwing the articles kept for renovating the temple, which was worth about of Rs.3000/- and thereby, the 6th respondent had registered a case, against the respondents/accused 1 to 5 for offences under
Sections 147,452 and
427 I.P.C. The respondents had not pleaded the guilty and the case was taken up for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3.PW1 in his evidence stated that on 03.08.2005 at 06.00 a.m. after closing the temple, he had come back and on the next day the accused had trespassed into the temple premises taken a lorry, bearing registration No.TNA.7991 and by breaking the lock of the grill gate and had caused damage by throwing the articles kept for renovating the temple and he had also stated that the temple belonged to Siddhi Vinayagar Kovil Trust and thus, he being the trust member of the said temple, had given a complaint against the respondents/accused 1 to 5.
4.PW2 Rajendran, in his evidence had stated that on 04.09.2005, at 07.30 a.m. when he and PW1 had gone to the temple to do their work, they had seen the accused, breaking the grill gate and causing damage by throwing away to the construction material and PW1 had given a complaint against the respondents/accused 1 to 5.
5.PW3 had corroborated the evidence of PW2. PW4 had deposed that on 04.09.2005 at 07.30 a.m., when he came to the temple the grill gate was broken and the articles kept for renovating the temple were damaged and he came to know that the said issue through other persons.
6.PW5, in his evidence had stated that on 04.09.2005, at 07.30 a.m. the accused had prepared pongal outside the temple and they had trespassed into the temple by breaking the grill gate and that they had caused the damages by throwing the construction material.
7.PW6 and PW7 had deposed that they were the witnesses to the observation magazar and that they had signed in the observation magazar. PW9 is the witness to the recovery of lorry bearing registration No.TNA7991 by the Sub-Inspector and that he along with PW8 had signed the recovery magazer.
8.PW10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, in his evidence he had stated that on 04.09.2005, at 02.00 p.m., PW1 had given a complaint and he had registered a First Information Report based on the complaint.
9.PW11 is the Investigation Officer, who had deposed that after registering the FIR, he took up the case and went to the scene of occurrence and preferred the magazer and sketch. After examining the witnesses, he had arrested the respondents/accused 1 to 5 and after completing the investigation, he had filed the charge sheet.
10.The Trial Court after examining the witnesses, acquitted the respondents/accused 1 to 5, on the ground that there was no averment with regard to the value of the damaged property in the FIR and that though the offence was alleged to have been committed at 07.30 a.m., the complaint was given at 02.00 p.m and there was no proper explanation for the delay and the other ground for acquittal was that neither the damage articles nor the weapons used for the damages were not recovered and that none of the witnesses had stated about the usage of weapons by any of the accused. On the above reasons, the Trial Court had given the benefit of doubt for acquitting the respondents/ accused 1 to 5.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contented that when all the witnesses have stated about the occurrence, the Court had not behaved the witnesses and convicted the accused and that the Trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused 1 to 5 contented that the Trial Court, after carefully perusing the statement of witnesses and having found that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt had acquitted the respondents/accused 1 to 5 and there was no manifest error committed by the Trial Court and that the order was not perverse, so as to allow this Criminal Revision Case and modify the order of acquittal.
13.Heard, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the sixth respondent and he has also submitted that there was no manifest error in the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
14.This Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned counsel for the respondents/accused 1 to 5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
15.This Court has consciously gone through the deposition of the witnesses, it is seen that there has been a civil dispute pertaining to the administration of the temple and that due to the dispute, civil litigations are also pending. On perusal of the records shows that there was no material used by the parties with regard to the right of the administration of the temple and that since the evidence of the witnesses have not been corroborated and also taking into consideration, the various contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial Court had acquitted the accused.
16.This Court finds no manifest error in the order of the Court below and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.