THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2005 State: Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirukalikundram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
(Crime No.360/2001) .. Appellant/Complainant Vs
1. Guna @ Gunasekaran 2.Rajaram 3.Thulasi 4.Marimuthu 5.Sakthivel 6.Ulaganathan 7.Kuppan 8.Sakthivel 9.Kanagaraj 10.Arul 11.Srinivasan 12.Govindan 13.Thirunavukkarasu 14.Kothandan 15.Rajendran 16.Rajadurai 17.Linganathan 18.Selvam 19.Ananda Sayanam 20.Veeraraghavan 21.Saravanan 22.Linganathan 23.Kuttiyappan
24. Sekar .. Respondents/A.1 to A.24 Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., to allow the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.622 of 2002, dated 09.12.2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mrs. M.F.Shabana, Gov. Advocate (Criminal) For Respondents : Mr. Karthik (Legal Aid Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in S.C.No.622 of 2002, dated 09.12.2004. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are given as per the ranks in the trial Court. The respondents are accused 1 to 24 in S.C.No.622 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
(i) The accused A1 to A24 stood charged for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C.;
(ii) The accused A.1, A.2, A.4, A.5, A.7, A.8, A.10, A.23 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.; (iii)The accused A.3, A.6, A.9 and A.11 to A.22 stood charged for the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 I.P.C.;
(iv) The accused A.4, A.5, A.8 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.;
(v) The accused A.1 to A.3, A.6, A.7 and A.9 to A.23 stood charged for the offence under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C.;
(vi) The accused A.3, A.6, A.9, A.11, A.12, A.13 to A.22 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992;
(vii) The accused A.1, A.2, A.4, A.5, A.7, A.8, A.10. A.23 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(viii) The accused A.3, A.9, A.10. A.12, A.16 and A.21 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xi)The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.8, A.11, A.13 to A.15, A.17 to A.20, A.22 to A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(x) The accused A.7, A.11, A.18, A.20 and A.22 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xi) The accused A.1 to A.6, A.8 to A.10, A.12 to A.17, A.19, A.21, A.23 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xii) The accused A.2, A.3, A.6, A.7, A.13, A.15, A.16, A.19 and A.22 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act.
(xiii) The accused A.1, A.4, A.5, A.8 to A.12, A.14, A.17, A.18, A.20, A.21, A.23 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xiv) The accused A.7, A.10, A.14, A.18, A.20, A.21 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xv) The accused A.1 to A.6, A.8, A.9, A.11 to A.13, A.15 to A.17, A.19, A.22 to A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xvi) The accused A.6, A.9, A.11, A.15, A.20, A.2.1 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xvii) The accused A.1 to A.5, A.7, A.8, A.10, A.12 to A.14, A.16 to A.19, A.22, A.23 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xviii) The accused A.4, A.8, A.11, A.14, A.16, A.18, A.21 to A.23 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xix) The accused A.1 to A.3, A.5 to A.7, A.9, A.10, A.12, A.13, A.15, A.17, A.19, A.20 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xx) The accused A.3, A.12, A.14, A.17 to A.21, A.23 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992.
(xxi) The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.11, A.1.3, A.15, A.16, A.22 and A.24 stood charged for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNP (PDL) Act, 1992 r/w 149 I.P.C.
(xxii) The trial Court, by judgment dated 09.12.2004, acquitted all the respondents/accused. Challenging the above said order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed, by the State before this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, one Tamilmani is the brother of P.W.1 and was the Ex-President of Vallipuram Panchayat in Chengalpattu District. There was a previous enmity between between A.2, and the above said Tamilmani in respect of supply of drinking water. On 08.05.2001, at about 7.00 p.m, all the accused carrying dangerous weapons and also wooden logs came to the house of P.W.1 and attacked him with a knife in left eye brow. A.2 and A.20 attacked him with casuarina stick. A.5 attacked him with wooden log in the chest. A.8 also attacked him with wooden log in the chest. A.3 attacked him with iron rod in the left foot. A.2 broken the house tiles with casuarina stick. The other accused entered into the house, damaged the tiles, windows and also damaged the brass and aluminium utensils worth about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50.000/-.
attacked the hand, thigh and head of P.W.2. They also damaged the brass and aluminium utensils, tiles, T.V and other things in the P.W.2's house.
(iii) Then the accused went into the house of P.W.11 and damaged the household utensils. Thereafter, one Anjalai, wife of P.W.5, came to P.W.1's house and told that A.2 and other accused damaged the household utensils, and also damaged the houses of P.W.5, P.W.12 and P.W.15. Next day morning, she went to the police station along with P.W.2, wife of P.W.11, and lodged a complaint. P.W.23, Head Constable attached to the Thirukalikundaram Police Station, based on the said complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.360 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 379, 324, 323, and 506(2) IPC and he sent P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the hospital for treatment.
(iv) P.W.15, who is working as a Doctor in Government Hospital, Chengalpat, examined P.W.1 on 09.05.2001 at about 12.15 a.m and at that time P.W.1 told that eight known persons attacked him with Knife and logs on 09.05.2001 at about 2.00 a.m and he got injuries. P.W.15 examined P.W.1 him and found the following injuries on his body:
"1.He has a laceration measuring 3x1x1 c.m. on his left cheek.
2. He had also a laceration measuring 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. on his left cheek.
3. He had also swelling and tenderness on his left fore arm.
4. He had also an abression measuring 1x1 c.m. on his left side chest."
(v) He had also complained of pain on his left thigh. The doctor issued an Accident Register Ex.P.34. P.W.24 is the another Doctor, who was working in Government Hospital, Chengalpat, examined P.W.2. and found following injuries on her body:
"(i)She had laceration measuring 4x1x1 c.m on her right frontal.
(ii) She had tenderness on her left shoulder,
(iii) She had contusion measuring 5x5 c.m on her forehead.
(iv) She had tenderness on her left index finger."
(vi) At that time, P.W.2 has stated that three known persons attacked her on 8.5.2001 at 3.30 p.m. P.W.24, after examining P.W.2, issued a wound certificate Ex.P.63.
(vii) P.W.23, the Head Constable, who is attached to the Thirukalikundram Police Station, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazars and a Rough Sketches in the presence of witnesses and he recovered material objects. He also took photographs in the scene of occurrence. Initially, he conducted the investigation and after finishing it, he send the same to the Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation and seized the material objects.
(viii) P.W.25, the Inspector of Police, attached to the Gooduvanchery police station, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against 24 accused for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 325 r/w 149 IPC.
(ix) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in first paragraph of the judgment and the accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 25 witnesses were examined and 78 Material Objects were marked.
(x) Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have turned hostile. P.W.5 is the wife of P.W.1's brother. She has spoken about the previous enmity and she also an eye witness to the occurrence. Subsequently, she gave complaint to the Thirukalikundram Police Station. P.W.6 has turned hostile. P.W.7 is a neighbour of P.W.12, whose house was also damaged in the occurrence. P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10 have turned hostile. P.W.11 is a eye witness to the occurrence, according to him, the accused damaged his house also. P.W.12 is a victim in this case, his house was also damaged by the accused. P.W.13 is also an eye witness and his house was also damaged. P.W.14 has also spoken to about the occurrence, the house and household utensils of P.W.14 were damaged by the accused. P.W.15, the Doctor examined P.W.1 and issued an Accident Register Ex.P.34. P.W.16 is also a Doctor, who spoke about injuries on P.W.1 and P.W.2, and issued a wound certificate P.36.
(xi) P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police conducted the investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses and he altered the F.I.R into Section 379 IPC including 506(ii) IPC. The altered F.I.R. is Ex.P.38. P.W.18 is the another Sub Inspector of Police. He commenced investigation and recorded the statement of Doctors. P.W.19 took photographs of the scene of occurrence.
P.W.20, P.W.21 and P.W.22 have turned hostile. P.W.23 is the Head Constable, who registered the complaint and commenced investigation. P.W.24 is the Doctor, who admitted P.W.2 in the hospital, issued the accident register Ex.P.63. P.W.25 is the Inspector of Police, after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.
(xii) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. To prove their case, the accused examined D.W.1, Dr. Mohanraj, Medical Officer as D.W.1 and marked the wound certificate of A.1 as D.1.
(xiii) The Doctor P.W.16 was examined as D.W.1, by the accused, according to him, on the date of occurrence, A.1 also got injured and he was admitted in the hospital. The Doctor also issued a wound certificate and the same was marked as Ex.P.D1.
(xiv) Dr.Mohanraj, who was working in Government Hospital, Chengalpattu was examined as D.W.1. According to him on 8.5.2001, at about 9.30 p.m A1 came to the hospital with multiple injuries and told that one known person attacked him at about 9.30 p.m. The Doctor examine him and found following injuries on his body:
"1.He had a deep cut inner aspect of left wrist exposing wrist.
2. He had deep abrasion measuring 7x5 c.m. over his right doreum."
The Doctor after examining him, issued a wound certificate Ex.D.1.
(xv) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused, in respect of above charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal of the accused from the charges, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
3. I have heard Ms.Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the appellant and Mr.M.Karthick, learned Legal Aid counsel, appearing for respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.
4. It is seen that the occurrence said to have taken place on 8.5.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. at night. According to P.W.1, all the accused came to his house with deadly weapons, wooden logs and attacked A.1 and thereafter, they attempted to go into the house of P.W.2 and the accused attacked him with dangerous weapons and damaged the household utensils. Then they attacked the houses of P.W.5, P.W.11 and P.W.4 and caused damages.
5. Even though two persons were injured in the occurrence and six houses were damaged, P.W.5 gave a complaint only on the next day i.e. on 9.5.2001 at 3.00 p.m. Absolutely, there is no explanation on the side of the prosecution for the delay in giving complaint. As there is no proper explanation on the side of prosecution for the long delay of more than 17 hours in registering the complaint, and they are multiple accused, it creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
6. Apart from that, at the time of admitting P.W.1 in the hospital by the Doctor P.W.15, P.W.1 stated that eight known persons attacked him. The Doctor P.W.16, while examining P.W.2, has stated that on 08.05.2001, at about 8.00 p.m. three unknown persons were attacked her. He also issued an accident register Ex.P.63.
7. At the earliest point of time, P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of admission in the hospital, have categorically stated that eight known persons attacked P.W.1 and three unknown persons attacked P.W.2 respectively. But, 21 persons were shown as accused, which created a serious doubt about the involvement of the other accused in the occurrence. From the evidence of D.W.1, it could be seen that on the date of occurrence, A.1 also suffered multiple injuries and the injuries are grievous in nature. The prosecution totally suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused and there is no investigation regarding injuries sustained by A.1, which is also a fatal .
8. Considering the above said circumstances, it could be seen that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court after considering all those materials acquitted the accused. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court.
9. In the above said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.622 of 2002 dated 09.12.2004 is hereby confirmed.
11. While parting with the case, I appreciate the services rendered by Mr.Karthik, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the respondents/accused as Legal Aid Counsel. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay his remuneration as per rules.
06.02.2017 cla Index:Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J cla Crl.A.No. 878 of 2005 06.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in