State Represented by v. Thirunavukkarasu, M/A 25 Years

JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and orders dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, in S.C.No.10/2015.

¶2The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence is as follows :

2.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are husband and wife. They were residing in Anthoniar Street, Kurumbalur, Perambalur District. On

08.04.2014 at about 06.45 P.M. the respondents/accused 1 & 2 came down to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and attacked both of them with an iron rod and wooden log and also threatened them with dire consequences. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were immediately rushed to Government Hospital, Perambalur by Balakumaran (P.W.3) by calling 108 Ambulance.

2.2. Dr.Prabakar (P.W.8) examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 on

08.04.2014 around 06.30 P.M. and found the following injuries on them : Mahimaidas (P.W.1)

¶1Laceration in the forehead measuring 2 x 1 cm and in the posterior head measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm

¶2Laceration measuring 2x1xti.5 cm in the middle of the skull. Revathi (P.W.2) Laceration in the forehead measuring 2 x 1 cm While P.W.1 was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital, P.W.2 was discharged on the same date. In the opinion of Dr.Prabakar (P.W.8) the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.2 are simple in nature.

2.3. Thiru. Balaji (P.W.9), the then Sub Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, on receiving intimation from the Government Hospital, Perambalur, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Mahimaidas (P.W.1). He registered an FIR in Crime No.254/2014 (Ex.P5) on the same day against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under section 307 IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1988. He then placed the records before Thiru. Senthilkumar (P.W.10), the then Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station.

2.4. Thiru. Senthilkumar (P.W.10), took up investigation in Crime No.254/2014, went to the scene of occurrence on 09.04.2014, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P6) in the presence of the witnesses Balakumaran (P.W.3) and John Kennedy (P.W.4). He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements individually under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C.

2.5. After completing investigation, P.W.10 laid a final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, in P.R.C. No.10/2015 against both the accused for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 307 and 324 IPC, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Permabalur, after furnishing copies of records to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

2.6. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Permabalur, took the case on file in S.C. No.10/2015 and made over the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, framed charges against the accused under sections 294(b), 307 and 324 IPC.

2.7. When the accused were questioned with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them under Section 313 of Cr.PC, they denied of having committed any offence. However, they did not examine any witness on their side.

2.8. The learned trial court judge after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 307 and 324 IPC and acquitted both of them under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal passed by the trial court judge the prosecution has come out with the present appeal.

¶3Heard Mr.S. Rajakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and Mr.N.Raja, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶4Mr.S. Rajakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant would contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their evidence clearly deposed about the commission of offence by both the accused. According to him, the trial court had acquitted the accused only on the ground that the prosecution has not done the investigation properly. It is also his contention that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of Dr.Prabakar (P.W.8) would clearly go to show that they were attacked by both the accused. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and orders passed by the trial court judge.

¶5Per contra, Mr.N.Raja, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the time and place of occurrence had not been stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and therefore their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. It is also his submission that the eyewitness to the occurrence turned hostile to the prosecution and the weapon allegedly used by both the accused had not been recovered by the police. All these aspects had been considered by the trial court judge and therefore, there is no reason for this court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court judge.

¶6In the instant case, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Though both of them are injured they have not clearly stated with regard to the place of occurrence. In fact P.W.1 was found in an inebriated condition at the time of hospitalisation. The other eyewitness to the occurrence namely Balakumaran (P.W.3), John Kennedy (P.W.4), Arputharaj (P.W.5), Mathiyadass (P.W.6) and Raj (P.W.7) did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the prosecution. A perusal of the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 shows that there was previous enmity between P.W.1 and A1 and in fact a case was registered against P.W.1 by A1 in Crime No.928/2012 before the very same police station.

¶7It is also pertinent to point out that while P.W.1 had stated that both the accused attacked him with a wooden log and an iron rod and fled away from the scene of occurrence leaving those two weapons in their house, P.W.2 in her deposition had stated that the accused had taken away both the weapons with them. However, the prosecution did not recover the iron rod and the wooden log from the accused or from the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

¶8The learned trial court judge after analysing the evidence on record had observed thus : '28. tof;F rk;gtkhdJ fle;j 08.04.2014 Mk; Njjpad;W khiy Rkhh; 06.45 kzpastpy; FUk;gY}h; me;Njhzpahh; njUtpy; cs;s rhl;rp kfpikjh];, mtuJ kidtp Nutjp, kfd; Nguwpthsd; MfpNahh; tPl;by; czT rhg;gpl;Lf;nfhz;bUe;jNghJ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l

vjphpfs;

jpUehTf;fuR

ifapy; cUl;Lf;fl;ilAlDk;, kfpikuh[; ifapy; ,Uk;G fk;gpAlDk; nrd;W 'Va;, Njtbah gaNy" vd;id vg;gblh re;Njfg;gl;L jpl;bdha; 'vd;W Mghrkhf jpl;bajhfTk;, Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l jpUehTf;fuR rhl;rp kfpikjhi] nfhy;yNtz;Lk; vd;w vz;zj;NjhL ,j;NjhL xope;J Nghlh vd;W nrhy;yp jiyapy; jhf;fp, tyJ

gf;f

jiyapy;

fhjUNf

fhaj;ij Vw;gLj;jpAs;sjhfTk;, mNjrkak; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l kfpikuh[,; ,Uk;G fk;gpahy; rhl;rp kfpikjhi] jiyapy; jhf;fp nfhiyKaw;rp nra;Jk;, jLf;f te;j rhl;rp Nutjpapd; jiyapy; jhf;fp rpWfhaj;ij Vw;gLj;jpajhfTk; muR jug;G tof;F vOe;Js;sJ. Mdhy; m.rh.1, 2 ,UtUNk jhq;fs; vjphpfshy; cUl;Lf;fl;il kw;Wk; ,Uk;G fk;gpahy; jhf;fpajhfTk; $wpAs;sdh;. NkYk; m.rh.1, 2 ,UtUk; tof;F rk;gtkhdJ

m.rh.1d;

tPl;bw;Fs;

czT rhg;gpl;Lf;nfhz;bUe;jNghJ

ele;jjhf

rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;sdh;. Mdhy; tof;if Gyd;nfhz;l cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU. ghyh[p mth;fs; tof;F rk;gtk; tPl;bw;F

ntspNa

ele;jjhf

tprhuizapy; njhpate;jjhfTk,; mjd; mbg;gilapy; ,e;j tof;fpy; ghh;it kf[h; m.j.rh.M.2 kw;Wk; khjphp tiuglk; m.j.rh.M.6y; ele;jjhf fz;Ls;sJ. vdNt muR jug;gpy; tof;F rk;gti; m.rh.1 2d; rhl;rpaj;jpd;gb m.rh.1d; tPl;bw;Fs; ele;Js;sJ. Mdhy; muR jug;gpy; m.rh.10d; rhl;rpaj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; muR jug;G rhl;rpak; m.j.rh.M.2 kw;Wk; m.j.rh.M.6d; %yk; tof;F rk;gt ,lk; m.rh.1d; tPl;bw;F ntspNa ele;Js;sJ vd fz;Ls;sJ. NkYk; m.rh.1 jd;Dila rhl;rpaj;jpYk;, NghyPrhh;

tprhhpj;jNghJk;

vjphpfs;

jhf;f gad;gLj;jpajhf $Wk; MAjq;fshd cUl;Lf;fl;il kw;Wk; ,Uk;G fk;gpfis m.rh.1d; tPl;bw;Fs;Ns Nghl;Ltpl;L nrd;Wtpl;ljhf $wpapUf;fpwhh;. Mdhy; m.rh.2d; rhl;rpaj;jpy; vjphpfs; jhf;f gad;gLj;jpajhf $Wk;

MAjq;fis

vjphpfs;

ifNahL vLj;Jr;nrd;Wtpl;ljhf $wpapUf;fpwhh;. vdNt vjphpfs; jug;gpy; Kd;itj;j thjj;jpd;gb cz;ikahfNt vjphpfs;

Nkw;gb

MAjq;fisf;nfhz;L

jhf;fp cs;shh;fsh vd;gJk; ngUj;j Iag;ghl;il vOg;GfpwJ.

¶29,e;epiyapy; muR jug;gpy; vjphpfs; m.rh.1 2I jhf;f gad;gLjpajhf $Wk; cUl;Lf;fl;il kw;Wk; ,Uk;Gfk;gp muR jug;gpy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;L ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F nrhj;jhf fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjpdhy; vjphpfs; jug;G thjk; kw;Wk; Kd;Ndhb jPh;g;Gfs; Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk;gb mike;Js;sJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. NkYk; m.rh.3 ghyFkhud; m.rh.1d; nrhe;j mz;zd; kfd; Mthh;. mth; rk;gtk; ele;j rpwpJ Neuk; fopj;J m.rh.2d; rj;jk; Nfl;L te;jjhfTk,; mg;NghJ vjphpfs; mq;Fg; Ngha;f;nfhz;bUe;jhh;fs; vd Kjy; tprhuizapy;

$wpapUf;fpwhh;.

Mdhy;

NghyP]; thf;F%yj;jpy; jhd; rk;gtj;ij fz;Ls;s rhl;rpahf $wpapUf;fpwhh;. Mdhy; ePjpkd;w Kjy; tprhuizapy; jhd; rk;gtj;ij ghh;f;ftpy;iy vdTk;, jdf;F vJTk; njhpahJ vdTk; $wpAs;shh;. vdNt ,tuJ rhl;rpak; m.rh.1 2d; rhl;rpaj;ij cWjp nra;Ak; tz;zk; mikatpy;iy vd;gJ ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F GydhfpwJ. NkYk; m.rh.3 Mdth; ,e;j tof;fpy; rk;gtj;ij fz;Zw;w rhl;rpahf mike;J ,Ue;jNghjpYk;, mtiu ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhhpj;jNghJ jhd; ve;jr; rk;gt epfo;itAk; fz;Zwtpy;iy vdTk;, jhd; rk;gtj;ij gw;wp Nfs;tpg;gl;ljhf $wp mth; Nfs;tpQhd rhl;rpahf ,t;tof;fpy; mike;Js;shh;. vdNt m.rh.3d; rhl;rpak; m.rh.1, 2d; rhl;rpaj;ij cWjp nra;J muR jug;G tof;if cWjp nra;Ak; tz;zk; mikatpy;iy vd;gJ ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F GydhfpwJ. vdNt vjphpfs; jug;gpy; Kd;itf;fg;gl;l vOj;J%y thJiu KOikahf Vw;Fk; tz;zk; mike;Js;sJ.

¶30NkYk; ,t;tof;fpy; m.rh.4 [hd;nfd;db vd;gth; m.rh.1d; nghpag;gh kfd; Mthh;. ,th; ,e;j tof;fpd; kw;nwhU ghh;it kf[h; rhl;rpahf mike;Js;shh;. ,th; ,t;tof;fpy; gpwo;rhl;rpahf ghtpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. NkYk; ,e;j tof;F rk;gtj;ij Nehpy; fz;Zw;wjhf $Wk; m.rh.5 mw;Gjuh[,; m.rh.6 kj;jpah],; m.rh.7 uh[; MfpNahh;fs; muR jug;gpy; gpwo;rhl;rpahfpAs;shh;fs;.

vdNt

m.rh.1, 2d; rhl;rpaj;ij jtpu ,ju rhl;rpfshd m.rh.3 Kjy; m.rh.7d; rhl;rpak; muR jug;G tof;if cWjp nra;Ak; tz;zk; mikatpy;iynad ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. NkYk; m.rh.1, 2d; rhl;rpaj;jpw;fpilNa rk;gt ,lk; Fwpj;j Kuz;ghLfs,; NkYk; vjphpfs; m.rh.1, 2[ jhf;fg; gad;gLj;jpajhf $Wk; MAjq;fs; Fwpj;j Kuz;ghLfs; mike;Js;sijg; nghWj;J muR jug;G tof;fpy; rk;gt epfo;thdJ m.rh.1d; tPl;bw;Fs;sh my;yJ ntspapyh vd;gJ gw;wp njspthf cWjp nra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gjpdhy; muR jug;G tof;F Iag;ghl;il Vw;gLj;jpAs;sJ. NkYk; vjphpfs; jug;G thjk; Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk; tz;zk; mike;Js;sJ vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ.

¶33NkYk; m.rh.1 jdJ Gfhh; thf;F%yj;jpy; tof;F rk;gt Fw;w epfo;tpw;F 1Mk; vjphp jpUehTf;fuR vd;gthpd; jhahh; N[hjp jhd; Kf;fpa fhuzk; vd thf;F%yj;jpy; fz;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; m.rh.9My; gjpag;gl;l m.j.rh.M.5 Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; Nkw;gb N[hjp vd;gth; vjphpahf fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. mth; ,e;j tof;fpy; Vd; tprhuiz vJTk; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. tof;F rk;gt epfo;tpw;F Motive mjhtJ

Kd;tpNuhjk;

,Ue;jJ

vd;gJ cWjpr;nra;ag;gltpy;iy. NkYk; m.rh.1 jdJ rhl;rpaj;jpy; 1tJ vjphpiaAk,; m.rh.1d; kidtp m.rh.2iaAk; jtwhd elj;ij cs;sjhf njhlh;GgLj;jp re;Njfg;gl;ljhfTk;, mjd; mbg;gilapy; 1Mk; vjphp jw;nfhiyKaw;rp Nkw;nfhz;Ls;sh; vdTk;, mjw;F fhuzkhd m.rh.1d; kPJ nguk;gY}h; NghyPrpy; Fw;w vz;.928/2012 ,jr gphpTfs; 306d;gb nguk;gY}h; N[.vk;. Nfhh;l;by; tof;F epYitapy; m.rh.1 ,e;j tof;F Kd;tpNuhjk; fhuzk; Fwpj;J m.rh.1 mtuJ GfhhpYk;, rhl;rpaj;jpYk; rk;gtj;ij cWjp nra;J $wtpy;iy. vdNt muR jug;G tof;F rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;tpNuhjk; jhd; fhuzk; vd;gJ muR jug;gpy; cWjp nra;ag;gltpy;iy vd vjphpfs; jug;G thjk; Kd;itf;fg;gl;L thjplg;gl;Ls;sJ."

¶9All the observations made by the trial court judge are perfectly in order. However, when two views are possible, the view which is favouring the accused should be taken into consideration. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the same.

¶10In the result, i. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and orders dated 03.11.2016 in S.C.No.10/2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, is confirmed. iii. This Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.N.Raja, learned Legal Aid counsel, for his valuable assistance in deciding this case. The Legal Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the said counsel towards his fee.

18.04.2024

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

¶1The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

R.HEMALATHA, J. mtl

18.04.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.04.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA State represented by : The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras – 600 104. Perambalur Police Station ...Appellant (Crime No.254/2014) vs. 1.Thirunavukkarasu 2.Mahimairaj ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed in S.C.No.10/2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur. For Appellant : Mr.S. Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mr.N.Raja Legal Aid Counsel