Madras High Court
Unknown vs Parameswaran on 2 February, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kilvelur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
(Crime No.217 of 2008) ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1.Parameswaran
2.Mariappan
3.Selvam
4.Karthick ... Respondents/Accused
No.1, 3 to 5
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
09.02.2018 passed in S.C.No.71 of 2010 on the file of the District and
Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
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 respondents/accused dated 09.02.2018 passed in
S.C.No.71 of 2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Court,
Nagapattinam.
2. The brief facts are under:
2.1 On 25.04.2008, while drawing water in the village tap, an
altercation ensued between Mangai (A2) and Radhika (PW1), who is the
wife of the deceased in this case by name Shanmugam. This altercation
resulted in both of them abusing each other in the choicest of epithets.
When their quarrel reached a crescendo, men folks joined in the quarrel and
fought with each other.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
2.2 According to the prosecution, Radhika's (PW1's) husband
Shanmugam and Mangai's (A2's) husband Parameshwaran (A1) grappled
with each and rolled on the floor. It is further alleged that in that fight,
Parameshwaran (A1), Mangai (A2), Mariappan (A3), Selvam (A4) and
Karthik (A5) had attacked Shanmugam and caused his death.
2.3 On these facts, the police registered a case in Kilvelur Police
Station Crime No.217 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, the
aforesaid five accused face trial in S.C.No.71 of 2010 before the Court of
Session, Nagapattinam, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w
34 IPC.
2.4 To prove the case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses
and marked twelve exhibits and four material objects.
2.5 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 09.02.2018, acquitted
Parameshwaran (A1), Mariappan (A3), Selvam (A4) and Karthik (A5).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
2.6 Challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused, the
petitioner/State has filed the present appeal with a delay of 675 days, which,
this Court, by order dated 27.01.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.665 of 2022 in
Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021, condoned the same.
3. Heard Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/State.
4. In paragraph nos.23, 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment and
order, the trial Court has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused. It
is seen that Shanmugam was taken to the hospital by his wife Radhika
(PW1). At the time of admission, Radhika (PW1) had told Dr.Rajeshbabu
(PW8) that her husband was attacked by one known person in their house.
5. There is no material to show the time, at which, the complaint
(Ex-P1) was given by Radhika (PW1) to the police. According to the
complaint, the incident had taken place on 24.04.2008 near the village tap,
while collecting water, whereas, the trial Court has given a finding that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
water would be supplied only on alternate days and there was no water
supply on 25.04.2008. Therefore, the very basis, on which, the complaint
(Ex-P1) and the evidence of Radhika (PW1) was predicated has been
established by the defence to be false.
6. Thus, when two views are possible on the evidence available
on record, the view that favours the accused merits acceptance especially in
an appeal against acquittal, when the accused enjoy the presumption of
innocence.
7. In this context, it may be apposite to refer to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in V. Sejappa vs. State1, wherein, the parameters to be
borne in mind by the Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal
have been broadly catalogued. The said parameters 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:
1 (2016) 12 SCC 150
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
(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
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.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
In such view of the matter, this is not a fit case to grant leave to
appeal against acquittal of the respondents/accused and accordingly,
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022 is dismissed. Ex consequenti, Crl.A.No.SR35227
of 2021 stands rejected.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.H.,J.)
02.02.2022
nsd
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kilvelur Police Station,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.HEMALATHA,J.
nsd
Crl.O.P.No.2350 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.SR35227 of 2021
02.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
