Madras High Court
S.Nagarajan vs State Rep. By on 16 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
S.Nagarajan .. Appellant
Versus
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District
(Crime No.893/2015) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the
judgment made in S.C.No.09 of 2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal, dated 26.11.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.C.D.Johnson
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
------
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellant by judgment dated 26.11.2019 in S.C.No.9 of 2018, thereby
convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC (2 counts) and
imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight days for each
count and imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two days for each default.
2 On 21.02.2015, when P.W.7 was on duty at the Namakkal Police
Station, the statement recorded at the Hospital from P.W.1 by P.W.9 was received
and he has registered a case in Crime No.893 of 2015 for the offence under
Sections 324 and 307 of IPC. Thereafter P.W.11 took up the case for investigation
and laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal,
which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.17 of 2016 and copies were furnished to the
accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C,
which was taken on file in S.C.No.9 of 2018 and the same was made over to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Namakkal, on appearance of the accused, after perusing the records,
since found prima facie case, framed charges against the accused for the offence
under Section 364 and 307 (2 counts) of IPC and when the accused was
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal,
for want of jurisdiction and charges were framed for the offence under Section
364 and 324 (2 counts) of IPC.
3 The prosecution thereafter examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to
P15 and Material Objects 1 to 3 and rested its case. Upon being questioned about
the evidence relied on by the prosecution and the incriminating materials, under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. the appellant denied them as false. Thereafter no evidence
was let in on behalf of the defence and thereafter the trial Court proceeded to hear
the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned
counsel for the accused and by judgment dated 26.11.2019, acquitted the
appellant for the offence under Section 364 and in respect of charges for the
offence under Section 324 (2 counts) of IPC, found the appellant guilty and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
imposed the sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed before this Court.
4 Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that this is a case, where all the witnesses including the
injured witness have turned hostile and absolutely there is no iota of evidence on
record connecting the accused with the offence. The trial court has convicted the
accused on the ground that even though the witnesses may turned hostile and lie
before the Court, the documents already on record namely the Wound Certificate
Ex.P5 and the complainant statement, which is marked as Ex.P6 would prove the
injury and connection of the accused to the said offence. He would further submit
that as far as wound certificate Ex.P5 is concerned, it can be an evidence for the
injury and it will not connect the accused with the offence. As far as Ex.P6 is
concerned, P.W.1, in the witness box, had disowned the complaint and only the
signature alone was marked and therefore relying upon such complaint by the
trial Court is perverse. Therefore there is no positive piece of evidence
connecting the accused with the offence. Hence, the trial Court thereby wrong in
convicting the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
5 Per contra, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that even though,
the witnesses have turned hostile, the admissible portions of evidence of hostile
witnesses can be relied upon by the trial Court to convict the accused. In this
case, the trial Court considering the nature of the offence, the injury and the
medical evidence let in by the prosecution coupled with the admissible portions
of the confession statements leading to recovery of material objects, is well
within its right to have convicted the accused. He would further submit that
already a lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Judge in awarding the
sentence and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6 I have heard the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel
and have perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
7 I am not in agreement with the submissions of the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that merely because leniency shown in the
sentence, the trial Court can be justified in convicting the accused. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has taken
into account Ex.P6 complaint statement so as to convict the accused. A reading of
the evidence of P.W.1 clearly show that P.W.1, who lodged the complaint, had
disowned the same and turned hostile. In the cross examination of hostile
witnesses, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution and therefore there is
nothing to rely upon in the evidence of the hostile witnesses. A perusal of the
evidence let in by the prosecution clearly shows that there is no positive piece of
evidence to connect the appellant with the offence. Even though the wound
certificate Ex.P5 is there, it can only prove the injury alone. Therefore, I am of
the view that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant and the appellant is
entitled for the benefit of doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
8 In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of
conviction made in S.C.No.09 of 2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Namakkal, dated 26.11.2019 is set aside and the appellant is hereby acquitted
from all the charges levelled against him in Cr.No.893 of 2015. The fine amount,
if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him and bail bond, if any,
executed by the him shall stand cancelled.
16.06.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking order
cgi
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2. The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
cgi
Crl.A.No.16 of 2020
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
