Anand Subramaniyam vs The State Rep By
2022 Latest Caselaw 10117 Mad

                                                                           Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 15.06.2022

                                                   CORAM :

                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                              Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

           Anand Subramaniyam                                        ... Appellant

                                                    Versus
           1. The State Rep by,
              The Inspector of Police,
              Thirunavalur Police Station,
              Villupuram,
              Villupuram Distrit.

           2. Manikandan

           3. Kaneshan

           4. Baskar

           5. Krishnan

           6. Sivakuluthu

           7.Sanniyasi

           8. Lakshmi Narayanan

           9. Kuppan

           10. Jayaprakash

           11. Aravindhan

           12. Saravanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



            1/12
                                                 Crl.A.No.139 of 2022



           13. Ravichanthrian

           14. Arul

           15. Gurunathan

           16. Nantham Veeramuthu

           17. Sounthirarajan @ Krishnamoorthy

           18. Elumalai

           19. Ramesh

           20. Navapan

           21.Palani

           22. Palani

           23. Nandhan

           24. Subramaniyan

           25. Velu

           26. Kumar

           27. Ayyapan

           28. Vasudevan

           29. Elumalai

           30. Velu

           31. Pari

           32. Varatharajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



            2/12
                                                                               Crl.A.No.139 of 2022



           33. Sekar

           34. Mani

           35. Ayyanar

           36. Elumalai

           37. Palani

           38. Selvam @ Selvaraj

           39. Thanigaivelu

           40. Narayanan

           41. Rajavelu                                                 ... Respondents



           Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C to set aside the
           judgement of the aquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions
           Judge at Villupuram, Villupuram District in S.C.No.266 of 2004 dated 17.09.2021
           and punish the accused in accordance with law and to secure the ends of justice;


                                  For Appellant   : Mr.A.Arasu Ganeshan

                                  For R 1         : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                    Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                  For R2 to R41   : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Moorthy
                                                    *****




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



            3/12
                                                                                       Crl.A.No.139 of 2022



                                                    JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the acquittal, aggrieved by the judgment dated

17.09.2021 in S.C.No.266 of 2004, whereby, the respondents 2 to 41 stood trial for

the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 447, 395, 395 read with 397, 435,

436, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu

Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992, where all of them are

acquitted by the trial Court by giving benefit of doubt.

2. The gist of allegation of the prosecution is that, when the father of the first

accused namely one Veerappan was murdered, to wreak vengeance for the said

murder, all these accused formed themselves in an unlawful assembly and burnt

around 25 houses in the village, ransacked each and every house and also

threatened the persons whoever came in their way and taken away their valuables

and goods and caused damages to their movable and immovable properties.

3. The Village Administrative Officer, namely one Lakshmanan, who had

since passed away, lodged the complaint. On his complaint, the case was registered

in Crime No.564 of 1998 and PW23 completed the investigation and filed charge

sheet. Upon the case being committed, after giving copies as per Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, upon the appearance of the accused, the case was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

taken on file as S.C.No.266 of 2004 and was assigned to Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram.

4. Upon the charges being framed, the accused denied charges and stood trial.

The prosecution examined PW1 to PW22 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 and also

M.O.1 to M.O.20 and rested its case. Upon being questioned about the

incriminating evidence under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the

accused denied the same as false and thereafter, no further evidence was let in on

behalf of the defence. The trial Court then proceeded to hear the learned Public

Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned counsel appearing for the

accused. Against seven of the accused this case abated since they died. In respect

of the remaining accused, after appreciating the evidence, the trial Court acquitted

all the accused giving them the benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the same, PW19,

who was the primary witness of the prosecution, who had also lost his house in the

incident, had been granted leave by this Court and he has also filed this appeal

against acquittal.

5. Heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 41. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

6. Mr.Arasu Ganeshan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

taking this Court through the evidence on record, more specifically, the evidence of

PW1, who has categorically named the accused Navappan, Palanivel. Murugan and

Kaneshan and the learned counsel pointed out that PW1 has categorically stated that

the said accused along with other persons came to his house and took away a sum of

Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel further drew the attention of the Court to the

evidence of PW6, who gave the name of the accused Manikandan, Kaneshan,

Krishnamoorthi, Palisami, Sekar and Thanikaivel, who had formed unlawful

assembly along with 50 other persons and committed the offence. The learned

counsel would further point out the evidence of PW8, who had witnessed the

incident, even though, he has not given any name, he corroborated the evidence of

PW1 & PW6. Similarly, the learned counsel pointed out the evidence of the

Investigating Officer, who has clearly stated about the basis on which, the accused

were identified and prosecuted. Learned counsel would further submit that there is

ample evidence on record about the motive and the eye witnesses are there to the

incident and the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused but acquitted the

accused is perverse in nature. He would submit that, even though, the trial Court

held that there is no independent evidence in respect of each and every other person,

at the same time, the trial Court conveniently omitted to convict the specific

accused, whose names are specifically given by the eyewitness. Therefore, he would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

submit that, when the M.Os which are used in the occurrence and the documentary

evidence including the observation Mahazar and sketch have been produced and 25

houses have been burnt in the incident, the trial Court should have considered the

overwhelming material and ought to have held that prosecution has proved the case

and convicted the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

the finding of the trial Court that, except two or three witnesses, other witnesses

have turned hostile is perverse. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment

of the Supreme Court of India in the case of "Masalti Vs State of U.P"1 wherein, it

is reads as follows:-

"......He argues that under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a larger number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is useful to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident....."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 1965 AIR 202

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

Therefore, he would submit that deposition of even single piece of trustworthy

evidence given by a single witness is enough for arriving at a finding of the guilt

and therefore, the trial Court Judgment in requiring quantity of witnesses rather than

the quality of witnesses deposed about the incident is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent

would submit that, even though, the case may be about 25 years old, still the

prosecution did its best to bring home the charges that serious amount of damages

was done to the whole village on account of the incident, which is undeniable in

nature. He would support the case of the appellant.

8. I have considered the submissions made by both the counsel and perused

the material records of this case.

9. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that, the trial Court

considered the entire evidence on record and has given a finding that of the 41

accused listed witnesses, 23 witnesses were examined and of the 23 witnesses and

PW10 to PW12, PW14, PW15, PW17, PW21, PW23 turned hostile. PW2, PW5,

PW9 and PW10 do not in any manner support the case of the prosecution and the

evidence of PW1, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW13, PW16, PW18, PW19 and PW20 alone https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

were remaining and of the said remaining witnesses, the trial Court went into the

evidence of each and every relevant witnesses and upon perusal of the same, the

trial Court considered that the presence of these witnesses at the village itself was

doubtful, since they had deposed in the cross examination as if they were living

outside the village. Further, the trial Court took into consideration of the fact that,

apart from the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer, even though, the

persons resided in different places, they did not immediately rush to the Police

Station and given any complaint. Again the trial Court found that, even though,

only few names have been mentioned, absolutely no evidence as against the rest of

the accused and the trial Court concluded that the prosecution is unable to pinpoint

the role played by each and every accused and conviction based on such evidence

would be unsafe, given the nature of evidence.

10. Considering the judgment of the trial Court as well as the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that, no exception

can be taken for the trial Court acquitting all the accused, who had not even been

named by any of the prosecution witnesses in the absence of any positive evidence

connecting in the occurrence and the trial Court is right in acquitting them. As far as

few accused against whom, PW1 to PW7 have deposed before the trial Court, it is

true that two views are possible that they have been named atleast to the extent for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

whatever evidence and the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the same, they

could be convicted. But the trial Court took the view that the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 447, 395, 395 read with 397, 435, 436, 506 read with

149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of TNPPDL Act, forming

themselves in an unlawful assembly, a total number of 48 persons have been

allegedly involved and when the case against the majority of the accused having not

been proved it is unsafe to convict these named accused also and especially when

the evidence as against these persons is doubtful, such a view cannot be termed as

impossible view and the judgment granting the acquittal is possible view.

11. Therefore, within the limited scope of powers in the appeal against the

acquittal, this Court is unable to upturn the finding as guilt and therefore acquittal

granted to the accused is in order.

12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

15.06.2022

Index : yes/no

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

sma

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Villupuram, Villupuram Distrit.

2. Additional District and Sessions Judge at Villupuram, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

Sma

Crl.A.No.139 of 2022

15.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis