Kalaiarasi vs Bethasu Pandiyan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10458 Mad

                                                                           Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 17.06.2022

                                                   CORAM :

                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                              Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

            Kalaiarasi                                               ... Appellant

                                                      Vs

            1.Bethasu Pandiyan

            2.Pichaipillai

            3.Kuttani @ Periyasamy

            4.Tharak @ Periyasamy

            5.Vadivelu

            6.Periyasamy

            7.Periyasamy (Died)
              (a separate case is registered in
              FTC.No.21/2012)

            8.Kandasamy

            9.State Rep. by
              Inspector of Police,
              Kunnam Police Station,
              Kunnam Taluk,
              Perambalur District.                                   ... Respondents



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
            1/6
                                                                                    Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

            Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed u/s. 374(2) r/w 378 of Cr.P.C to set aside the
            judgement of the Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C.No.25 of 2012 dated
            18.01.2018.

                                        For Appellant      : M/s.Usha Ramman

                                        For R1 to 6 & 8    : Mr.Senthil Murugan
                                        For R7             : Died
                                        For R9             : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                             Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                                                  JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against acquittal filed by PW.1/one Kalaiarasi. According to

the prosecution, on 07.05.2010 at about 8.00 A.M., the accused unlawfully

assembled themselves and were leveling the field belonging to the defacto

complainant and when the same was questioned, they abused the defacto

complainant with abusive words and also threatened to do away with them and

hence, this case. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.140 of 2010 was registered

for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code

and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Upon the charge sheet being laid, since the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil

Nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act is triable by Sessions, the case

was taken on file as PRC.No.20 of 2011 and after issue of copies under Section 207,

the case was committed as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal

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

Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

Procedure. The case was taken on file as SC.No.25 of 2012 and was made over to

the Mahila Court, Perambalur. Thereafter, the charges on the above said offences

were framed and the accused denied the charges and stood trial. The prosecution

proceeded to examine PW.1 to PW.11 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.13 and MO.1 and

MO.2 were also produced. Upon being questioned about the evidence on record and

the incriminating circumstances, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter,

no evidence was let in by the accused and the Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to

hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the

accused and by the judgment dated 18.01.2018, acquitted the accused.

2. On a perusal of the Trial Court’s judgment, it is seen that majority of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. The

Trial Court also took into the fact that there was a delay in reporting the offence to

the Police. The Trial Court also further took into the fact that there was a delay in

registering the case and therefore, considering the evidence in total on merits, the

Trial Court has given a finding doubting the entire prosecution case and acquitted

the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW.1 has categorically

deposed about the occurrence which the Trial Court ought to have considered and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

convicted the accused. He would further submit that the Trial Court has also ordered

compensation to the victim.

4. Even after listening to the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant, in an appeal against acquittal, it is settled law that the view taken by the

Trial Court is a possible view and the same cannot be upturned and therefore, on a

perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, several factors and reasons are given to

acquit the accused. All the reasons cannot be upturned by this Court and it cannot

be said that it was on an improper appreciation of evidence. When after complete

appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court renders its finding and arrives at a

conclusion of acquittal and when there is no perversity or illegality in the said

reason, the finding of acquittal cannot be upturned.

5. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this criminal appeal and is

accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Trial Court has ordered

compensation for the victim, even though it gave benefit of doubt to the accused

under Section 357(A)(3), and the said order is maintained.

17.06.2022 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

To

1.The Mahila Court, Perambalur

2.The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

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

Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

hvk

Crl.A.No.630 of 2019

17.06.2022

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