Madras High Court
Jayachandran vs State Represented By on 3 February, 2022
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH
and
The Honourable Mrs. Justice R.HEMALATHA
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
Jayachandran .. Appellant/de facto
complainant
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Perianaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
(Crime No.730 of 2009) .. Respondent/Complainant
2.Lakshmanan
3.Shanmugaraj
4.Sundar @ Sundarraj
5.Murugan .. Respondents/AA 1,2,4 & 5
Criminal Appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. against
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2011 passed in S.C.No.216
of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track
Court No.I), Coimbatore.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.S.Shankar
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.)
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 30.12.2011 passed in S.C.No.216 of 2011 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No.I), Coimbatore
and to set aside the same.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Shanthakumar and Lakshmanan (A1) were doing business together and they
were good friends. Shanthakumar had taken a loan of Rs.19,00,000/- from a
financial institution and when he was not able to repay the loan,
Lakshmanan (A1) came forward to repay the same, but, wanted the property
of Shanthakumar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
3. Accordingly, Shanthakumar had permitted Lakshmanan (A1) to
repay the loan to the financial institution, from where, it was borrowed, but,
Shanthakumar did not vacate the property.
4. In the meanwhile, Lakshmanan (A1), on the strength of the
power of attorney that was given by Shanthakumar, had sold the property to
another person. Since Shanthakumar was not vacating the property, it is
alleged that Lakshmanan (A1), along with four other accused, barged into
the house of Shanthakumar on 23.12.2009 and attacked him with deadly
weapons resulting in his death.
5. On these allegations, Lakshmanan (A1), Shanmugaraj (A2),
Chandrasekar (A3), Sundar (A4) and Murugan (A5) faced a trial in
S.C.No.216 of 2011 in the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast
Track Court No.I), Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 148 and 302
r/w 149 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
6. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and marked twenty
four exhibits and sixteen material objects.
7. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.12.2011, acquitted
Lakshmanan (A1), Shanmugaraj (A2), Sundar (A4) and Murugan (A5) of
all the charges. Of course, during trial, it is stated that Chandrasekar (A3)
had died and therefore, the case against him stands abated.
8. Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, Jayachandran
(PW1)/de facto complainant, one of the employees of Shanthakumar initially
filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.626 of 2012. When the matter came
up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, he found that an appeal under
the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. should have been filed and not a revision.
Holding so, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 29.03.2019 in
Crl.R.C.No.626 of 2012, directed the Registry to return the records and
permitted the revision petitioner to present an appeal under the proviso to
Section 372 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present appeal has been numbered.
9. Heard Mr.S.Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
first respondent.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the
evidence of the three eye-witnesses viz., Jayachandran (PW1), Rajeshwari
(PW2) and Mageshkumar (PW3) and submitted that the trial Court has
improperly appreciated their evidence for acquitting the accused. He also
submitted that the weapons that were used in the attack were identified by
the witnesses and were marked as M.Os.1 to 5.
11. We carefully went through the judgment and order of the trial
Court. We find that the trial Court has given cogent reasons for disbelieving
the evidences of Jayachandran (PW1), Rajeshwari (PW2) and
Mageshkumar (PW3) in paragraph nos.25 and 26. It is seen that there are
several contradictions inter se the evidences of Jayachandran (PW1),
Rajeshwari (PW2) and Mageshkumar (PW3) with regard to the alleged
attack by the five accused on Shanthakumar. In this regard, pertinent it is to
extract paragraph no.25 of the impugned judgment and order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
“25/ m/rh/1.2.3 rhl;rpa';fspy; 1tJ
vjphp ,we;J nghdtiu mUthshy; jiyapy;
btl;o fhak; Vw;gLj;jpajhf TWfpd;whh;fs;/
m/rh/1 rhl;rpaj;jpy; 2tJ vjphp 1tJ
vjphpa[ld; ,Ue;j nkYk; 3 ngh;fs; jiy.
if KJF Mfpatw;wpy; btl;oajhft[k;/
m/rh/2 rhl;aj;jpy; 2tJ vjphp ,we;J
nghdthpd; tyJ tpyh vYk;gpy;
btl;oajhft[k;. m/rh/3 rhl;rpaj;jpy; 2tJ
vjphp tyJ ifapYk; tpyh vYk;gpYk;
btl;oajhft[k; TWfpd;whh;/ mUthshy;
btl;oajhf brhy;ytpy;iy/ m/rh/1
rhl;rpaj;jpy; 1tJ vjphp jtpu cldpUe;j 3
vjphpfSk; btl;oajhf TWfpd;whh;/ m/rh/2
rhl;rpaj;jpy;/ 3tJ vjphp kw;Wk; ,we;J
nghd re;jpunrfuDk;/ if fhy;fspy;
btl;oajhf TWfpd;whh;/ m/rh/1.2.3 rhl;rpfs;
mUthshy; btl;o ,we;J nghd
rhe;jFkhhpd; KJF tyJ tpyh vYk;g[
tapW if fhy;fspy; fhak; Vw;gl
; l
; jhf
brhy;fpwhh;fs;/ m/rh/13 kUj;Jthpd;
rhl;rpaj;ij ghh;itapl;ljpy;. m/rh/1f;F
fGj;jpYk;. 2 tyJ nky; ijapYk;. 3 tyJ
nky; ifapy; kw;bwhU fhaKk;/ 4 tyJ
nky; ifapy; kw;bwhU fhaKk;/ 5 tyJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
njhs;gl;ilapYk;/ 6 tyJ KJfpYk;/ 7
KJF nky;gFjpapYk;/ 8 tyJ gf;f
khh;fpYk;/ 9 ,lJ gf;f fPH; KJfpYk;/ 10
,lJ KJfpYk;/ 11/ ,lJ fhy; bgUtpuYk;
bkhj;jk; 11 fha';fs; ,Ue;jjhf kUj;Jth;
TWfpd;whh;/ Mdhy; tapw;wpy; fhak;
,Ue;jjhf kUj;Jth; brhy;ytpy;iy/
nkw;brhd;d fha';fspy; 1.2.3.4.5.8.10 fha';fs;
btl;Lf;f fha';fs; vd;Wk; 6.7.9 fha';fs;
Fj;Jf; fha';fs; vd;Wk; brhy;ypa[s;shh;/
nkYk; kUj;Jth; FWf;F tprhuiz
rhl;rpj;jpy;. 1 kw;Wk; gy fj;jpfshy; Fj;Jk;
nghJ me;j Fj;Jf;fha';fs; Vw;gl
tha;g;gz
[ L
; vd;W TWfpd;whh;/ Mdhy; ,e;j
tHf;fpy; vtUk; ,we;J nghdtiu fj;jpahy;
Fj;jpajhf rhl;rpa';fs; brhy;ytpy;iy/
m/rh/1.2.3 rhl;rpa';fspy; ,we;J nghdtUf;F
5 fha';fs; Vw;gl;ljhft[k; kUj;Jth;
rhl;rpaj;jpy; 11 fha;f
; s; Vw;gl;ljhft[k;
Kuz;ghLfSld; fhzg;gLfpwJ/ ”
12. Similarly, the trial Court doubted the very presence of
Mageshkumar (PW3) in the place of occurrence in paragraph no.27 by
giving convincing reasons viz., that his presence was not referred to in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
complaint (Ex-P1) at all. That apart, it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused came in two motor bikes, but, in the evidence of the witnesses, only
one motor bike was referred to and not two motorbikes, which finds a
detailed discussion in paragraph no.27 of the impugned judgment.
13. In the light of the above, we do not find the reasonings of the
trial Judge for acquitting the accused to be perverse warranting interference
in appeal.
14. Thus, when two views are possible on the evidence available on
record, the view that favours the accused merits acceptance. 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
1 (2016) 12 SCC 150
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
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 the result, this criminal appeal stands dismissed as being devoid of
merits.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.H.,J.)
03.02.2022
nsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court No.I), Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Perianaickenpalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
P.N.PRAKASH,J.
and
R.HEMALATHA,J.
nsd
Crl.A.No.143 of 2020
03.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
