Madras High Court
Selvi vs State Represented By on 24 June, 2021
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
Selvi,
W/o.Late.Govindaraju ... Appellant /
de facto complainant
versus
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Vadaponparappai Police Station.
(Crime No.277 of 2012) ... Respondent /
Complainant
2.Chakkravarthi
3.Selvam @ Selvaraj
4.Subramanian
5.Dhananchezhiyan
6.Muneeswaran
7.Sekar
8.Saravanan
9.Kamaraj @ Annadurai ... Respondents /
A-1 to A-8
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment of acquittal
made in S.C.No.240 of 2015 dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam and allow the appeal
by convicting the accused for the charges framed against them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.Swami Subramanian
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
For Respondent Nos.2 to 9 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.240 of 2015.
2. The prosecution story runs as under;
2.1 The accused had animosity against the deceased, which
arose in the election to the local body. That apart, it is alleged that
Subramanian/A3, the brother-in-law of the deceased was not happy with
the deceased as he did not get his due share from the ancestral property
of his wife, who is none other than the sister of the deceased. On these
motives, it is alleged that on 07.06.2012, Subramanian/A3 called the
deceased over phone and took him in his motorbike towards a nearby
lake, where all the other accused arrived and belaboured the deceased
with deadly weapons, resulting in his death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
2.2 On a complaint given by Selvi (P.W.1), wife of the deceased,
the Police, registered a case in Vadaponparappai P.S. Crime No.277 of
2012 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 120-B and 302 IPC on 08.06.2012 at
07.00 hours and took up investigation. The Investigating Officer went to
the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2)
and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P.29).
2.3 Inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased and
the body was sent to the Government Hospital for postmortem where
Dr.Jeeva (P.W.13) conducted postmortem and issued Postmortem
Certificate (Ex.P.15) wherein he has stated that the deceased died on
account of injuries sustained by him.
2.4 The accused were arrested on various dates and their
confession statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer.
2.5 After examining the witnesses and collecting various
reports, the Investigating Officer filed a final report before the
jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
120-B and 302 IPC, against Chakkravarthi/A1, Selvam @ Selvaraj/A2,
Subramanian/A3, Dhananchezhiyan/A4, Muneeswaran/A5, Sekar/A6,
Saravanan/A7 and Kamaraj @ Annadurai/A8, who are the respondents 2
to 9 herein.
2.6 On appearance of the accused, copies of the relied upon
documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them and the
case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.240 of 2015 for
trial.
2.7 The trial Court framed charges under Sections 120-B, 147,
148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC against the respondents 2 to 9/A-1 to A-8 and
when they were questioned, they pleaded 'not guilty'.
2.8 To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 19
witnesses and marked 40 exhibits and 12 material objects. When the
accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
2.9 On the side of the defence, an alteration report dated
08.06.2012 was marked as Ex.D.1 in the cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer. No witness was examined on behalf of the
appellant.
2.10 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 07.02.2017 in
S.C.No.240 of 2015, acquitted all the accused, aggrieved by which, the
wife of the deceased, Selvi (P.W.1) has filed the present appeal.
3 Heard Mr.Swami Subramanian, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent/State.
4 Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents
2 to 9/accused, we appointed Mr.B.Thirumalai, Advocate (Enrol.No.
2860/2006) to represent the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
5 Mr.Swami Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that Selvi (P.W.1) and Prabakaran (P.W.7) have given
clinching evidence as they have clearly stated that they saw the accused
belabouring the deceased, which is not properly appreciated by the trial
Court. It is also submitted that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the
evidence of Sathiyamoorthy (P.W.2) and Balaraman (P.W.3).
6 Rebutting the submissions, Mr.BThirumalai, learned counsel
for the respondents 2 to 9 / accused submitted that the trial Court has
given cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of Selvi (P.W.1),
Sathiyamoorthy (P.W.2), Balaraman (P.W.3) and Prabakaran (P.W.7)
inasmuch as they are relatives of the deceased. He further submitted that
Prabakaran (P.W.7), in his evidence, has clearly stated that he was in the
house of Selvi (P.W.1) along with other witnesses and only at that time,
they received information that Govindaraj has been murdered, on hearing
which, they rushed in the night around 11 p.m. with hurricane lantern to
the place of occurrence. He also contended that the F.I.R. in this case has
been registered with an inordinate delay and the same has reached the
jurisdictional Magistrate only at 04.20 p.m. on 08.06.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
7 We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and have perused the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses
and we find that the deceased Govindaraj was involved in 10 criminal
cases and that, he was also convicted by the Sessions Court in some
cases and was on bail.
8 It is the specific defence of the accused that the deceased
Govindaraj used to do Katta Panchayat and thereby, earned the enmity of
so many others; since the police were not able to secure the real
assailants, Chakravarthy (A-1) has been implicated on the short ground
that he contested the election against Govindaraj, which had developed
animosity.
9 Admittedly, Chakravarthy (A-1) had won the election
against Govindaraj and therefore, it is only Govindaraj, who must have
had animosity against him for one reason or the other. We find that the
evidences of Selvi (P.W.1), Sathiyamoorthy (P.W.2), Balaraman (P.W.3)
and Prabakaran (P.W.7), who are close relatives of the deceased, are to
the effect that they went in the night hours behind the deceased and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
watched the attack from behind a bush at the place of occurrence. These
evidences have been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court in the light of
the clear evidence of Prabakaran (P.W.7) and Aladiyan (P.W.9), who have
stated otherwise.
10 It is trite that in an appeal against acquittal, when there are
two views possible, the appellate Court should be slow in disturbing the
judgment and order of acquittal and it can interfere only when there is a
gross miscarriage of justice. Such parameters do not obtain in this case
warranting our interference.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
[P.N.P.,J.] [R.P.A.,J.]
24.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tindivanam.
2.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Vadaponparappai Police Station.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sri
Crl.A.No.415 of 2017
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
