Madras High Court
Unknown vs Chetty on 25 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mathikonpalayam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.25 of 2015) ...Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
Chetty ...Respondent/Accused
Petition filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking to grant leave to
file an appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
29.01.2016 passed in S.C.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 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 29.01.2016 passed in
S.C.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.
2. Challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused, the
petitioner/State has filed the present appeal against acquittal with a delay of
1416 days, which, this Court, by order dated 25.11.2021 in
Crl.M.P.No.12141 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021, condoned the
same and took up main appeal for consideration.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Govindhammal and the respondent/accused were in relationship and the
respondent/accused had given a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to
Govindhammal; however, on 07.02.2015, when the respondent/accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
demanded the return of money, Govindhamal refused and therefore, the
respondent/accused is said to have slapped her, kicked her and left her
company. Thereafter, the body of Govindhammal was found by Akilan
Amirdharaj (PW1), Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O.), in a vacant land
near railway track at 5.30 p.m. on 07.02.2015.
4. Akilan Amirdharaj (PW1), V.A.O., gave a written complaint
(Ex-P1) to the police, based on which, a case in Mathikonpalayam Police
Station Crime No.25 of 2015 was registered on 07.02.2015 at 21.00 hours
under Section 302 IPC against unknown accused.
5. According to the prosecution, the respondent/accused had
surrendered before Akilan Amirdharaj (PW1), V.A.O., on 08.02.2015 and
gave extra judicial confession stating that while he and Govindhammal were
discussing the loan matter, Govindhammal was not willing to return the
amount and therefore, he slapped her, kicked her and left her company; on
coming to know of her death, he surrendered and given the statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
6. Apart from the extra judicial confession, the prosecution relied
on the evidences of Subramani (PW5) and Thirumal (PW7), who have
stated in their evidence that they had seen the respondent/accused and
Govindhammal together in Pulikarai bus stand.
7. The trial Court has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the
extra judicial confession as well the evidences of Subramani (PW5) and
Thirumal (PW7) in paragraph nos. 29 and 30 of its judgment.
8. According to Thirumal (PW7), he had seen the appellant and
Govindhammal in the bus stand, whereas, the body of Govindhammal was
found in the open land near the railway track by Akilan Amirdharaj (PW1),
V.A.O.
9. Assuming for a moment that the respondent/accused had
slapped Govindhammal and hit her, it is not the case of the prosecution that
she died immediately. According to Subramani (PW5) and Thirumal (PW7),
they saw the respondent/accused and Govindhammal around 12.30 p.m. at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
Pulikarai bus stand, but, the body of Govindhammal was found in the open
land only in the evening.
10. As regards the evidence of Subramani (PW5), the learned trial
Judge has stated that, had Subramani (PW5) seen the respondent/accused
and Govindhammal together, he would have immediately told the same to
Akilan Amirdharaj (PW1), V.A.O., on the same evening, when the body of
Govindhammal was discovered in the open land.
11. Thirumal (PW7), in his evidence, has stated that he saw the
respondent/accused and Govindhammal in Pulikarai bus stand at 12.30 p.m.
on 07.02.2015 and they were going to their village by walk; on the next day,
when he heard about the finding of a dead body near the railway track, he
went to the Government Hospital, saw the dead body and told the police that
he had seen Govindhammal with the respondent/accused. However,
Thirumal (PW7) has stated in his cross-examination that he is neither
related to the respondent/accused nor to Govindhammal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
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
respondent/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
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
1 (2016) 12 SCC 150
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
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.”
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.23070 of 2021 is dismissed. Ex consequenti, Crl.A.No.SR34845
of 2021 stands rejected.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.H.,J.)
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
nsd
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.HEMALATHA,J.
nsd
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mathikonpalayam Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23070 of 2021
in Crl.A.No.SR34845 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
