Madras High Court
A.Rajaveni vs State Represented By on 7 July, 2021
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
A.Rajaveni .. Appellant
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kiliyanur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.311 of 2008) .. Respondent/Complainant
2.M.Rajini
3.M.Mani
4.M.Palani
5.M.Ravi
6.T.Anandan
7.M.Varadharajan .. Respondents/Accused 1 to 6
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the
judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 passed in S.C.No.131 of 2009 on the
file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.I),
Tindivanam and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai
For R1 : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
Public Prosecutor
For RR 2 to 7 : Mr.E.Kannadasan
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
This criminal appeal has been filed by Rajaveni (PW4), widow of the
deceased Anbu @ Venkatachalam, under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.,
challenging the judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 passed in S.C.No.131
of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track
Court No.I), Tindivanam, acquitting the accused/respondents nos.2 to 7
herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1 On account of animosity during the local body elections and in
the administration of the local temple festival, one Kothandam was
murdered sometime in the year 2007 by Anbu @ Venkatachalam (deceased
herein) and others, in which, a case was registered by the police and Anbu,
Kanniyappan (PW1), Ramu (PW9) and others were shown as accused. As a
retaliation for the murder of Kothandam, it is alleged that the brothers of
Kothandam viz., Rajini (A1), Mani (A2), Palani (A3) and Ravi (A4), along
with Anandan (A5) and Varadharajan (A6), had committed the murder of
Anbu on 01.10.2008 around 6.45 p.m.
2.2 It is the specific case of the prosecution that Anbu was riding a
Hero Honda bike bearing Registration No.PY-01-AE-3772 (M.O.12)
belonging to Ramu (PW9) along with Kanniyappan (PW1) as pillion on
01.10.2008 around 6.45 p.m. Behind the motorbike of Anbu, Sankar (PW2)
and Veerappan (PW3) were following in their bike. At that time, the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
came by a TATA Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN-23-D-4257 (M.O.4)
and dashed behind the motorbike of Anbu, on account of which, Anbu fell
down and thereafter, they belaboured him with deadly weapons resulting in
his death.
2.3 On a complaint (Ex-P1), given by Kanniyappan (PW1), the
police registered a case in Kiliyanur Police Station Crime No.311 of 2008
on 01.10.2008 at 8.00 p.m., for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and
302 IPC against six named accused and nine unnamed, but, identifiable
accused and took up investigation of the case. The printed FIR was marked
as Ex-P26.
2.4 The complaint (Ex-P1) and the printed FIR (Ex-P26) reached
the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 02.10.2008 at 7.40 a.m.
2.5 Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to the place of
occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex-P21) and Rough Sketch
(Ex-P31).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
2.6 Inquest was conducted over the body of Anbu and the inquest
report was marked as Ex-P30. Thereafter, the body of Anbu was sent to the
Government Hospital for postmortem, where Dr.Manimeghalai (PW13)
performed autopsy on the body of Anbu and issued postmortem certificate
(Ex-P19), wherein, she has stated as follows:
“Opinion as to cause of death – The deceased would
appear to have died of irreversible shock and haemorrhage to
injuries to the skull and brain and multiple incised wounds
sustained by him abut 16-24 hours prior to autopsy”
2.7 While that being so, Kanniyappan (PW1), who is said to have
been injured in that incident, was sent with a police memo to the hospital,
where, he was examined by Dr.P.T.Valavan (PW19) and the copy of the
Accident Register of Kanniyappan (PW1) was marked as Ex-P20.
2.8 The police arrested the accused and effected recoveries of the
weapons and vehicles.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
2.9 After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed a final report in P.R.C.No.33 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Vanur, for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 302, 307, 148, 149,
294-B and 506 (II) IPC only against six accused/respondents 2 to 7.
2.10 On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of
Session in S.C.No.131 of 2009 and was made over to the Additional District
and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.I), Tindivanam, for trial.
2.11 The trial Court framed the aforesaid charges against the
accused and when questioned, they pleaded “not guilty”.
2.12 To prove the prosecution case, the police examined twenty six
witnesses and marked thirty six exhibits and seventeen materials objects.
2.13 When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
same. From the side of the accused, one witness viz., Saravanan (DW1) was
examined and four exhibits (Exs-D1 to D4) were marked.
2.14 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 in S.C.No.131
of 2009, has acquitted the accused of all the charges, aggrieved by which,
the present appeal has been preferred by the widow of the deceased, as
stated above.
3. Heard Mr.C.S.S.Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
first respondent/State and Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the
accused/respondents 2 to 7 herein.
4. The entire case revolves around the evidence of Kanniyappan
(PW1), Sankar (PW2) and Veerappan (PW3), who were said to be the
eyewitnesses and whose evidence, the trial Court has disbelieved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
5. It is the specific case of Kanniyappan (PW1), Sankar (PW2)
and Veerappan (PW3) that, while they were going along with Anbu in their
motorbikes around 6.45 p.m. on 01.10.2008, the accused came in a TATA
Sumo Car, banged from behind the two wheeler of Anbu, on account of
which, Anbu fell down along with his pillion Kanniyappan (PW1), after
which, the accused attacked Anbu indiscriminately.
6. The motive for the attack is that Anbu was involved in the
murder of Kothandam, brother of Rajini (A1), Mani (A2), Palani (A3) and
Ravi (A4). However, from the evidence of the witnesses, it was found that
even before Kanniyappan (PW1) could lodge the complaint (Ex-P1),
message had reached the police and they had come to the place of
occurrence and had examined some witnesses. Only thereafter, on the
complaint given by Kanniyappan (PW1), FIR (Ex-P26) in this case was
registered on 01.02.2008 at 8.00 p.m., whereas, the complaint (Ex-P1) and
the FIR (Ex-P26) reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 02.10.2008
at 7.40 a.m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
7. A reading of the FIR (Ex-P26) shows as if Kanniyappan (PW1)
had given the complaint (Ex-P1), whereas, the evidence of the witnesses
show that one Elumalai, who was involved in several criminal cases, had
written the complaint, based on which, the complaint (Ex-P1) was
registered.
8. To cap it all, in column no.7 of the printed FIR (Ex-P26), which
contains the details of the accused, apart from the names of six accused, it is
also stated that nine known others were involved in the offence. This means,
around fifteen persons were involved in the offence, whereas, only six
accused, of whom, four of them belonging to the same family, have been
arrayed as accused.
9. Be that as it may, it is seen that Kanniyappan (PW1), who is
said to have been injured in the occurrence, was sent with a police memo to
the hospital, where, he was examined by Dr.P.T.Valavan (PW19).
Dr.P.T.Valavan (PW19), in his evidence as well in the Accident Register
(Ex-P20), has stated that Kanniyappan (PW1) told him that he was assaulted
by unknown persons using unknown weapons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
10. If really the FIR (Ex-P26) had been registered on 01.10.2008 at
8.00 p.m. as projected by the prosecution, Kanniyappan (PW1) would not
have stated to Dr.P.T.Valavan (PW19) subsequently viz., on 02.10.2008 at
1.30 a.m. that he was attacked by unknown persons with unknown weapons.
11. Yet another aspect noticed by the trial Court is that, the two
wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AE-3772 (M.O.12), which was
driven by Anbu, had not suffered even a scratch after it was banged by a
heavy vehicle viz., TATA Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN-23-D-4257
(M.O.4).
12. All these aspects had weighed in the mind of the trial Court for
acquitting the accused in this case.
13. The trial Court has had the opportunity to see the witnesses
and note their demeanor while they were under examination for appreciating
their evidence, which privilege, we do not have.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
14. Trite it is that when two views are possible from a given set of
evidence, the view that favours the accused merits acceptance.
In the result, we find no merit in this criminal appeal warranting
interference and consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.P.A.,J.)
07.07.2021
Index: Yes/No
nsd
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court No.I),
Dindivanam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kiliyanur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
nsd
Crl.A.No.550 of 2018
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
