(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ILANGOVAN ) This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Pudukottai, in S.C.No.22 of 2010, dated 16.09.2017.
2. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court:- The accused formed unlawful assembly on 17.01.2007, in the Village, when the Jallikattu sports was performed, the accused armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common intention, the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 first accused caused injury to witness No.3. The second accused caused injury with stick to witness No.2. The accused Nos. 3 to 6 caused injury to the first witness with sticks. The nineth accused caused injury to the fourth witness. The tenth accused caused injury to the first witness. The eleventh accused caused injury to the fifth witness. The thirteenth accused caused injury to the first witness and the accused Nos.8 & 12 caused injury to the first witness and also the accused Nos.1, 5, 7, 9 and 11, criminally intimidated the witnesses and thereby, all the accused have committed the offence punishable under
Section 147,148,323,324 and 506 (ii) IPC.
3. After completing the formalities, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.1 of 2011, since the counter case was committed to the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, this case was also transferred to the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, who in turn, transferred the same to the Additional District and Session Judge, Pudukottai and there, it was taken on file as C.C.No.1 of 2011 and was tried separately. But, simultaneously, the trial was conducted in both the cases and judgment was pronounced in both the cases, on the same day. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4. The case of the prosecution as narrated through the witnesses:-
P.W.1 was living in Sokampettai Village. On 17.01.2007, on the eve of Pongal Festival, the sport event of Jallikattu was conducted. At that time, the accused formed unlawfully in a group and prevented P.W.1 and started to assault with weapons. The accused Dhakshinamoorthy assaulted the witness Shankar with stick. The accused Ellangovan assaulted the witness Balakrishnan with stick. The accused Amirthalingam assaulted the witness Nagarajan with stick. When he tried to prevent the attack, he was attacked by the accused Kumar and Ramesh. He sustained injury on the head region. The accused Amirthalingam has assaulted him on the head region. Because of the injuries, he fainted in the place of the occurrence. Later, he was taken to Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur. Ex.P.1 is the statement recorded by the Police, P.W.11.
5. P.W.9, Doctor was working as Assistant Professor in Government Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and on 17.01.2007, when he was working in the hospital, in the emergency ward, he admitted http://www.judis.nic.in 5 the injured Nagaraj, at about 04.40 p.m. He found a lacerated injury measuring 1 x 1 x ½ cm in the nose region and lacerated injury measuring 7 x 32 cm on the forehead. As per the radiology report, injury was found to be simple in nature.
6. At the same time, at about 06.45 p.m, he admitted one injured Ramachandran and on his examination, found a lacerated injury measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm, 2 x 1 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the back side head. As per the radiology report, the injury was found to be simple in nature.
7. At about 06.10 p.m, he admitted the injured Shanmugam and his examination, he found that no external injuries. As per the radiation Report, the injury was found to be simple in nature.
8. At about 06.25 p.m., admitted the injured Balakrishnan and found a lacerated injury measuring 3 x 4, 3 x 1 cm and 3 x 1 cm on the head region and the injury was found to be simple in nature. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9. Similarly, at about 07.05 p.m, admitted the injured Vasantha and on his examination, he found a contusion on the back side of the head and complaint of pain on the right shoulder region. The injuries were found to be simple in nature. Similarly, he had also examined the injured Nagarajan and found an abrasion on the face region which was also found to be simple in nature.
10. P.W.10 recorded the statement of P.W.1 at about 04.30 p.m and registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2007 for the offence punishable under
Sections 147,148,323,324 and 506 (ii) IPC. The investigation was also taken by P.W.11 on 18.01.2007 and visited the place of occurrence at about 03.00 a.m and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Sketch in the presence of the witnesses and recorded the statement of witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed a final report making charges against the accused as stated above.
11. P.W.2 was assaulted by the accused Illangovan on the left forehead region. P.W.3 was assaulted by the accused Dhakshinamoorthy on the back side of the head. P.W.4 was assaulted by the accused Ramesh http://www.judis.nic.in 7 on the back side and also was assaulted by Rengasamy with wooden log on the back side of the head. P.W.5 was assaulted by the accused Amirthalingam on the head region. P.W.6 also sustained injury in the occurrence, by throwing stone. But, unable to identify the person, who was assaulted him.
12. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused, examined as many as 11 witnesses and marked 15 documents and no material object exhibited.
13. After the completion of the evidence, on the side of the prosecution, the accused were put to 313 questioning and they denied the facts stated by the witnesses.
14. At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the accused persons were not proved beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly acquitted all the accused persons.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
15. Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been preferred by P.W.4 namely, Ramachandran on the ground that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, even though, the injured persons have clearly deposed about the occurrence.
16. Before we go into the facts and aspects of the case, the back ground, must be borne in mind. In the Village, two group were operating. One under the head of Sundararaj and another one under the head of Radhamani, over the construction of the Pillaiyar Temple in the Village. The group under the head of Sundararaj have involved themselves in constructing temple in a common place, at the finance supplied by the persons, who were residing in Singapore. This was objected by the other group under the head of Radhamani. It is also seen that in the Panchayat Election, held in the Village, one Annamalai has own and the said Sundararaj was defeated and so, because of these also, there was enmity between these two groups.
17. When the enmity existed between two groups, on the eve of Pongl Festival, Jallikattu was conducted on 17.01.2017 in the Village. At http://www.judis.nic.in 9 that time, quarrel broke out between the two groups. They involved in exchange blows upon the others with wooden logs, stones, sticks etc., including deadly weapon, such as, aruval. In the clash, both side suffered injuries. One Sekar, who was an insane person, was also killed in the occurrence. In respect of which, S.C.No.21 of 2010 was filed against the injured persons herein. The accused persons herein, are the witnesses in the above said case. So, in the group clash, as mentioned earlier, several persons got injured. Who, were the aggressors, was not found by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. Even though, both the cases were investigated by the same Investigating Officer. In both the cases, he filed the charge sheet.
18. Due to lack of evidence, the injured persons in this case were acquitted in S.C.No.22 of 2010. Similarly, due to lack of evidence, these accused persons were acquitted from this case. Against the judgment in both the cases, both the parties have preferred the appeal. Both the appeals were heard together.
19. Perusal of records as well as the evidence shows that there is no clear explanation either on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the witnesses as to how the injured persons in the other group http://www.judis.nic.in 10 sustained injuries. All the injured persons have given evidence suppressing the other side of the story. P.W.7 would say that both the groups clashed with each other, nearing the School and because of the quarrel, in a group clash, several persons sustained injury. So, from the medical evidence and as well as from the medical records, it is seen that P.Ws.1 2, 4, 5 & 6 injured in the incident. But, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. When a group clash took place, the injured persons may not be in a position to identify, who assaulted them.
20. As mentioned earlier, the accused persons have also sustained injury in the incident and one death took place. So, only on this ground, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the fact of unlawful assembly and assault on the injured persons by the accused persons in the particular day. Even during the argument, the accused in the appeal was not in a position to convince the Court with regard to the appreciation of facts by the Trial Court. He has also fairly conceded that the evidence, on the side of the prosecution is not cleared and the Investigating Officer has not found out, who were the aggressors.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
21. So, in the absence of such clear evidence, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the Trial Court requires no interference. We find nothing on record to show that the Trial Court has acted in a perverted manner. So, the order of the acquittal, passed by the Trial Court is sustained and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.
(MKKS,J) (GI,J) 30.03.2021 2/2 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dss Note:-In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. http://www.judis.nic.in 12 K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J & G.ILANGOVAN, J dss To,
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Pudukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Karambakudi Police Station, Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Judgment made in Crl.A(MD)No.104 of 2020 30.03.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in