Madras High Court

State Represented By vs Leo on 9 December, 2021

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021
                                                                                  in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED: 09.12.2021

                                                              Coram

                                          The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
                                                             and
                                         The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA

                                                    Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021
                                                  in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

                     State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     B-1, Dharmapuri Town Police Station,
                     Dharmapuri District.
                     (Crime No.105/2016)                               ...   Petitioner/Complainant

                                                               Vs.
                     Leo,
                     S/o.Athuvan,
                     No.1, Thiyagi Lakshmiammal Street,
                     Annasaagaram.                                     ...   Respondent/Accused

                                  Petition filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to grant leave to

                     file an appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                     15.02.2019 passed in S.C.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Additional

                     Sessions Court, Dharmapuri District.

                                          For Petitioner       : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor

                     Page 1 of 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021
                                                                                   in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

                                                             ORDER

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

This criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner/State

seeking to grant leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order

of acquittal of the respondent/accused dated 15.02.2019 passed in

S.C.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,

Dharmapuri District.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sekar @

Chandrasekar, Hemachandran (PW10), Mahendran (PW25) and the

respondent/accused Leo, were friends and used to meet very frequently in a

tasmac bar for consuming liquor.

3. On 05.02.2016, while all the four were drinking in the tasmac

bar, a quarrel is said to have ensued, in which, the respondent/accused is

alleged to have attacked Sekar as well Hemachandran (PW10) and

Mahendran (PW25). In the said attack Sekar died and Hemachandran

(PW10) and Mahendran (PW25) sustained injuries.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

4. Though the incident in this case is said to have taken place on

05.02.2016 around 3.45 p.m., the FIR (Ex-P20) has only been registered on

06.02.2016 around 9.30 a.m.

5. After completing the investigation, the respondent/accused was

tried by the Additional Sessions Court, Dharmapuri, for the offences under

Section 302 IPC for murdering Sekar; under Section 307 IPC for attempting

to murder Hemachandran (PW10); and under Sections 324 and 326 IPC for

causing simple and grievous injuries to Hemachandran (PW10) and

Mahendran (PW25).

6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either

side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 15.02.2019 in S.C.No.138

of 2016, has acquitted the respondent/accused.

7. Challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused, the

petitioner/State has filed the present appeal against acquittal with a delay of

304 days, which, this Court, by order dated 09.12.2021 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

Crl.M.P.No.12710 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021, condoned the

same and took up the main appeal for consideration.

8. This Court carefully analysed the findings that have been given

by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent/accused.

9. In this case, the prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of

Hemachandran (PW10) and Mahendran (PW25), who allegedly had

sustained injuries in the scuffle. It is seen that these two witnesses

absconded after the incident and they appeared before the police only four

months later and their statements were recorded.

10. In fact Hemachandran (PW10) had stated that he knows about

the death of Sekar only later. There is no explanation given by the

prosecution as to why the FIR (Ex-P20) in this case, which was belatedly

registered and as to why the two important witnesses viz., Hemachandran

(PW10) and Mahendran (PW25), went in abscondance for four months.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

11. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of acquittal

passed by the trial Court.

12. It is trite that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering

with the judgment and order of acquittal and when two views are possible on

the evidence available on record, the view that favours the accused merits

acceptance.

13. In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the judgment of

the Supreme Court in V. Sejappa vs. State1, wherein, the Supreme Court,

has broadly catalogued the parameters to be borne in mind by the Court

while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. The said parameters laid

down by the Supreme Court are profitably extracted hereunder:

“23. . . . . . Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption

1 (2016) 12 SCC 150

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

(iii) Though, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34866 of 2021

In such view of the matter, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal

against acquittal of the respondent/accused and accordingly,

Crl.O.P.No.24589 of 2021 is dismissed. Ex consequenti, Crl.A.No.SR34866

of 2021 stands rejected.

                                                                                 (P.N.P.,J.)    (R.H.,J.)
                                                                                       09.12.2021
                     nsd


                     To

                     1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
                       Dharmapuri District.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,