THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2005 State Rep by Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad, Chennai - 2 Crime No.507 of 2002 .. Appellant Vs
1. Rajasekar
2. Bhuvaneshwari .. Respondents Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment dated 23.06.2004 in C.C.No.1170 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15..
For Appellant : Mrs. M.F.Shabana, Gov. Advocate (Criminal) For Respondents : Mr. N.Dhamodhara Krishna, for R2.
JUDGEMENT
The respondents 1 and 2 are accused in C.C.No.1170 of 2003 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15. There are totally 4 accused. A1, A3, and A4 were stood charged for an offence under Section 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic Act and A2 stood charged for an offence under Section 8(a) of the Immoral Traffic Act. During trial, A3 and A4 admitted their guilt, and A1 and A2 contested the case and the trial court by an order dated 23.06.2004, acquitted both A1 and A2. Now, challenging the order of acquittal, the State, filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
P.W.1, is the decoy witness in this case. On 30.11.2002, at about 7.00 p.m., while he was standing in a bus-stand, Chindadiripet, P.W.8, Inspector of Police, came there and gave Rs.2000/- to P.W.1 and took P.W.1, along with him to Vadapalani Kamala Theatre, where a ford car was parked there, and the driver was standing near the car and another lady was also standing nearby the car. The driver of the vehicle called P.W.1 and told him that, a cinema actress is available, and whether he has any intention to have sex with her. Then, the driver took P.W.1 to A2 and she demanded Rs.5000/-, but P.W.1, has http://www.judis.nic.ign iven Rs.2000/-, which was handed over by P.W.8 to him and also obtained a receipt Ex.P.1. P.W.1 came back and informed the same to P.W.8 Inspector of Police, then he arrested all the four accused, taken them to the police station, and registered a case in Crime No.507 of 2002 for an offence under Section 4(1)( and 8(a) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, the First Information Report is Ex.P.7. Then he seized the car and recorded the statement of P.W.1,decoy witness and also recorded the statement of the Constables, who accompanied him, and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.
3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment and the accused denied the same. In order to prove its case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were exhibited, besides 3 material objects were marked.
4. Out of which, P.W.1 is the decoy witness. P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1. P.W.3 Head Constable and P.W.4 a Lady Constable, working in the respondent police, also accompanied the decoy witness. P.W.5 has turned hostile. P.W.6 Head Constable, in the respondent police. P.W.7, a Lady Sub-Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, accompanied P.W.8. P.W.8, Inspector of Police, conducted investigation and all of them went along with the decoy witness and arrested the accused.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not examine any witness or mark any documents on their side.
6. Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal of the accused, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State.
7. We have heard the Mrs.M.F.Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the appellant and Mr.N.Dhamodharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and I have also perused the records, carefully.
8. The trial court, elaborately considered the entire material available on record and found out as many as 22 contradictions in the prosecution case. The trial court, doubted the presence of P.W.1, decoy witness and the prosecution also failed to establish that how many police officers had accompanied the decoy witness, to the scene of occurrence and the scene of occurrence also differs. The Observation Mahazar and Rough sketch filed by the prosecution do not tally with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The trial Court also doubted the arrest and preparing the First Information Report, and considering all the above materials, the trial court acquitted the accused.
9. It is the settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to the accused and the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system is that every person, accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless their guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of their innocence are reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the entire material in detail and acquitted the accused and I find no infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. 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 is 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 C.C.No.1170 of 2003 dated 23.06.2004 is hereby confirmed.
15.02.2017 mrp Index:Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No To
1. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J mrp Crl.A.No.35 of 2005 15.02.2017