Madras High Court
Mara Naicker vs The Inspector Of Police on 30 June, 2021
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
Mara Naicker,
S/o.Palaniappan,
Therku Thottam,
Oppilavadalur, Shenbagapudur,
Sathyamangalam, Erode. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Erode.
2.Nagaraj,
S/o.Thimma Naicker,
Oppilavadalur, Shenbagapudur,
Sathyamangalam, Erode. .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the
judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2011 on the
file of the Additional Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.II),
Gobichettipalayam and set aside the same.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.09.2011
passed in S.C.No.78 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,
(Fast Track Court No.II), Gobichettipalayam, the appellant/de facto
complainant (PW1) has preferred the present criminal appeal.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that there were financial
dealings between the deceased Ramaraj and the accused Nagaraj, second
respondent herein, pursuant to which, Ramaraj went to the house of
Nagaraj at 07.30 p.m. on 09.10.2010 and demanded repayment. At that
time, it is alleged that Nagaraj assaulted Ramaraj with an iron rod, which
resulted in the death of Ramaraj on 29.10.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
3. On these allegations, on a complaint (Ex-P1) given by the
appellant/de facto complainant (PW1), the police registered a case in Crime
No.645 of 2010 under Section 326 IPC and on the death of Ramaraj, the
case was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.
4. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final
report in P.R.C.No.2 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate Court,
Sathyamangalam.
5. On the appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the
relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was
committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.78 of 2011 and was made over
to the Additional Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.II), Gobichettipalam,
for trial.
6. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against
the accused and when questioned, he pleaded “not guilty”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
7. To prove the prosecution case, the police examined twelve
witnesses and marked ten exhibits and three materials objects.
8. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on
the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.
From the side of the accused, no witness was examined nor any document
marked.
9. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 in S.C.No.78
of 2011, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC,
aggrieved by which, the appellant/de facto complainant (PW1), father of
Ramaraj, has filed the present appeal against acquittal under the proviso to
Section 372 Cr.P.C.
10. Heard Mr.P.R.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the
appellant/de facto complainant, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent/State and
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the second respondent/accused.
11. The entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence of
Chinnasamy (PW2) and Mohanraj (PW3).
12. Chinnasamy (PW2) and Mohanraj (PW3) have stated in their
evidence that, while they were standing near their house around 7.30 p.m.
on 09.10.2010, they saw Ramaraj talking to Nagaraj near the latter's house.
They further stated that Ramaraj was demanding repayment of the monies
lent by him from Nagaraj and infuriated by the same, Nagaraj assaulted
Ramaraj with an iron rod.
13. The trial Court has disbelieved this testimony on the ground
that in the cross-examination, Chinnasamy (PW2) and Mohanraj (PW3)
have stated that they were standing around 100-150 feet away from
Nagaraj's house. There was no evidence to show that the area was
illuminated. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses that they heard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
the conversation between Nagaraj and Ramaraj was disbelieved by the trial
Court on appreciation of their evidence.
14. The trial Court has had an opportunity to see the demeanor of
these two witnesses and we do not find any perversity in the findings
arrived at by the trial Court warranting interference.
15. 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 reason, much less any good reason, to
interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal that has been passed by
the trial Court and consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.P.A.,J.)
30.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
nsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court No.II),
Gobichettipalayam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sathyamangalam Police Station,
Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
nsd
Crl.A.No.551 of 2018
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
