Vilvanathan v. Thirilogachandar

J U D G M E N T The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the defacto complainant viz., Vilvanathan (P.W.1) against the judgment dated 16.02.2023 made in C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore.

¶2The Inspector of Police, K.V. Kuppam Circle, registered an FIR in Crime No.15/2011 of Paradarami Police Station based on the compliant given by one Vilvanathan (P.W.1) against 50 named persons and others.

¶3The case of the prosecution in a condensed form is as follows : i. The accused 1 to 18 are the residents of K. Mottur Village, Kallapadi Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, and the complainant Vilwananthan (P.W.1) is also residing in the same village. ii. The accused, on account of previous enmity, during a village festival on 16.01.2011 let the bullocks to run through the Bajanai Koil Street, which was against the Resolution passed in connection with Bullock Cart Race. iii. According to the prosecution, all the accused armed with deadly weapons unlawfully assembled and stabbed the appellant herein / defacto complainant (P.W.1) and K.Munirathinam P.W.2 with a knife. iv. The accused also hit P.W.1 and P.W.2 with wooden logs and iron rods apart from pelting stones on them. v. After completing investigation, the Inspector of Police, K.V.kuppam Circle filed a final report against A1 to A18 alone before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, in C.C.No.1/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. vi. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, furnished copies of records to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. vii. Thereafter, since the connected case in S.C.No.166 of 2017 was committed to the Court of Sessions, this case was transferred as per the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. Accordingly, S.C.No.166 of 2017 and C.C.No.1/2019 were tried jointly. viii. The following Charges were framed against the accused: S.No. Rank of Accused Offences

¶1A1, A2, A5 to A11, A13 to A18 U/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.

¶2A3 and A4 U/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. ix. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also adduced x. When the accused were questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied of having committed any offence. However, they did not examine any witnesses on their side, except marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 during the course of cross examination of prosecution witnesses. xi. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, after analysing the evidence adduced on both sides acquitted all the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, vide judgment dated

16.02.2023. During the pendency of the trial A12 died and the case against him got abated.

¶4As against the judgement passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.01 of 2019, dated 16.02.2023, P.W.1, preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

¶5Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the R1 to R4, R8 and R9, Mr.R.Jayasankar, learned counsel for R5 to R7, R10 to R17 and Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the 18th respondent.

¶6Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court, without considering the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, had erroneously acquitted the accused and therefore, the present criminal appeal should be allowed.

¶7The trial court in paragraph Nos. 16,17 and 18 of its judgment had observed thus: "16. P.W.1 stated he was assaulted by A1 to A4. But P.W.3 stated that A1 assaulted P.W.1 Vilvanathan with wooden log and P.W.4/Megaraj stated that A1 used filthy language against P.W.1 and assaulted him with iron rod and A2 cut his left hand with knife and A3 & A4 assaulted with wooden logs on his left hand finger and P.W.5 / Saravanan stated that A1 to A4 assaulted P.W.1 with iron rods. But, the Police have seized only one knife, one wooden log and one black stone at the occurrence place. Further, it was not made clear as to which accused used the material objects 1 to 3 at the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has further stated in the cross examination that, Fwpg;ghf ahu; ahu; vij itj;jpUe;jhu;fs; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;ytpy;iy"

¶17From P.W.1's evidence it is evident that after returning from pooja the problem was started and in the occurrence place in total more than 150 persons were gathered. P.W.1 also stated that a group of persons attack with each others. All the other witnesses have stated that P.W.1 was assaulted with iron rod. But this case no iron rod was recovered.

¶18P.W.8 doctor in her evidence stated that P.W.1 stated in her that mts; md;W khiy 5 kzpastpy; 4 ngu; fj;jpahy;. fk;gpahy;. jhf;fpajpy; fhak; Vw;gl;ljhf Twpdhu;/ ,lJ gf;f bjhilapd; cs;g[wk; xU rpije;j fhak; 2/ tyJ ifapd; fPH;g;gFjpapy; xU fpHpe;j fhak; 3/ tyJgf;f fPH; beP;R gFjpapy; xU nkyhd rpuha;g;g[ fhak; 4/ ,lJ fd;dj;jpy; xU fd;wpa fhak; 5/ tyJ Rz;Ltpuypy; xU rpije;j fhak; njhy; MHj;jpw;F fhzg;gl;lJ"/ So, from the evidence of doctor it is evident that P.W.1 stated to the doctor that he was assaulted with iron rod and knife by 4 persons at 5 p.m. In his evidence he stated that he was assaulted on his thigh, right hand, right shoulder, finger. But the injuries stated by the doctor are different. P.W.1 has not stated that he got injury on his chest and cheek. The injuries stated by the doctor are simple incised injuries and contusion and abrasion and these injuries may happened even any one fall on the ground.

¶8Thus it is seen that the trial court had analysed the evidence adduced on both sides threadbare. A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of things, the identification of the author of the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender's identity. The presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties.

¶9In the result i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. the judgment dated 16.02.2023 made in C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore, is hereby confirmed.

14.09.2023

vum Index : yes/no Speaking /Non speaking Order To

¶1The Inspector Police Paradarami Police Station K.V. Kuppam Circle Vellore District.

¶2The I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore.

¶3The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

R.HEMALATHA, J. vum

14.09.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.09.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA Vilvanathan ...Appellant Vs. 1. Thirilogachandar 2. Thirunavukarasu 3. Shanmugam 4. Kasi Gounder 5. Gopalakrishnan 6. Gajendiran 7. Kuppu 8. Parimala 9. Santhanakumari 10. Sivalingam @ Samu 11. Ethiraj 12. Kanniyappan 13. Murugan 14. Anbu 15. Kuppan 16. Shanmugam 17. Govindaraj 18.The Inspector Police (Crime No.15/2011 of Paradarami Police Station) K.V. Kuppam Circle, Vellore District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is filed against the judgment dated 16.02.2023 made in C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore. For Appellant : Mr.E.Kannadasan For R1 to R4, R8 & R9 : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For R5 to R7, R10 to R17: Mr.R.Jayasankar For R18 : Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)