Madras High Court
K.Angappan vs State: Rep. By on 4 March, 2022
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
K.Angappan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State: rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Jalakandapuram Police Station,
Salem District
(in crime No.119 of 2008)
2.Murugesan
3.Selvam
4.Venkatachalam @ Chinnakutti
5.Chellammal
6.Vennila
7.Gomathi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mettur, Salem Distrct, in SC.No.148 of 2010 dated
30.09.2011, acquitting the respondents 2 to 7/accused for an offence
under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 324, 34 of IPC.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vasudevan
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
R2 to R7 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present criminal appeal has been filed by the defacto
complainant to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur, Salem District dated 30.09.2011 in
SC.No.148 of 2010.
2. The appellant is the defacto complainant in the above referred
case. For the alleged occurrence dated 06.04.2008, he lodged a complaint
before the Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station alleging
that the respondents 2 to 7 attacked him with 'aruval'. Before the trial
court upon receiving the final report and after taking cognizance, the
respondent No.2 to 7 stood charged for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 324, 34 of IPC. After elaborate trial, by
judgment dated 30.09.2011, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mettur, Salem District passed an order of acquittal and disposed the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
as prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Challenging the said order of acquittal, the defacto complainant is before
this Court by way of filing the present criminal appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) On 06.04.2008 at about 10.30am, when PW1-Angappan was
proceeded to his lands at Pannikkanoor Village, along with his
brother-PW2, in the mud road adjoining the social welfare forest, the
accused 1 to 3 were cutting the trees in the forest. On seeing the same,
PW1 questioned the same as why you are cutting the trees, in this regard,
the all accused got provoked and later A4 to A6 caught hold the PW1,
thereby restraining him from moving further by saying “,tid
btl;L';flh”. The first accused assaulted the PW1 with 'kodoval' behind his
head on the right side by saying “,j;njhL brj;JxHplh”. The second accused
Selvam tried to assault the PW1 with 'koduval' on his head by saying
“brj;jhy; jhd; v';fSf;F epk;kjp”. But as PW1 resisted the same with his left
hand, the koduval fell on his left little finger, ring finger and the middle
finger and due to the same PW1 sustained grievous injury. The third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
accused Venkatachalam @ Chinnakutti assaulted PW1 with 'koduval' on
the centre of the PW1's head saying that “eP brj;jhy; jhd; v';fSf;F epkk; jp”.
When PW2 intervened and questioned about the atrocities of the accused,
the first accused assaulted him with 'koduval' on his left upper arm and
caused simple injury. On hearing the cue and cry of PW1 and PW2,
PW1's son PW3 Ravichandran and one, Appakannu who were working
in the PW1's land came to the scene of occurrence and after seeing them,
the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately PW1
brought to Shanmuga Hospital, Salem for treatment, wherein the Sub
Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station came and recorded
the statement from the PW1 i.e. Ex.P1. Further, the police seized the
blood stained cloth from the PW1.
(ii) On receipt of the complaint given by PW1, PW8-Sub Inspector
of Police registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.119 of 2008 of
Jalakandapuram Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and
307 of IPC. The printed F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P18. He visited the scene
of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar under Ex.P19 and
the rough sketch under Ex.P20. He arrested the accused Murugan,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
Chellammal, Vennila and recorded the voluntary confession statement
given by them. The said statement was recorded in the presence of PW4-
Ramesh and PW5-Arul. Based on the confession given by the first
accused, PW8 seized 'koduval' -MO.1 which was hidden in the bushes of
'Oonjamaram' which was situated on the southern side of A1's house. The
admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P21.
(iii) In continuation of investigation, PW8 examined witnesses and
recorded statement. Blood stained cloth recovered from PW1 was marked
as MO.4 and MO.5. On 15.04.2008 at about 12.45hrs, PW8 arrested the
accused Gomathi and sent her for remand. Since A2 and A3 got
anticipatory bail, they were summoned by PW8 by issuing notice under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. While at the time they were present in the police
station, in the presence PW4 and PW5, PW8 recorded the confession
statement from A2 and A3. Upon the confession given by A2,
MO.2- 'koduval' has been recovered which was hidden by second
accused in the thorny bushes of Peikaradu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
(iv) PW8 after recording the confession statement from accused
and witnesses, examined the doctor who treated the injured. Afterwards,
PW9 picked up the case for further investigation and examined PW7 who
is the Village Administrative Officer of Pannikanoor Village and
obtained the true copy of A register under Ex.P15, the true copy of the
FMB-Ex.P16, the copy of the Adangal-Ex.P17. In conclusion, PW9
received the accident register copy from the doctor and came to the
conclusion that the accused are all liable to be convicted under Sections
147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of IPC. He filed final report accordingly.
4. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges
under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 324, 34 of IPC, all the accused
denied the same. In order to prove their case on the side of the
prosecution, PW1 to PW9 examined and 27 documents were marked as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. Besides, five material objects were marked as MO1 to
MO5. Apart from those documents, the certified copy of the F.I.R.
registered in Cr.No.120 of 2008 was marked as Ex.D1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
(i) Out of the said witnesses, PW1 is the injured spoken about the
occurrence and about the lodging of complaint. PW2 is also a victim /
injured spoken about the injuries sustained by him in the alleged
occurrence. PW3 is the son of PW1 who brought PW1 to Shanmuga
Hospital, Salem.
(ii) PW4 and PW5 are the persons who signed as witnesses in the
observation mahazar. They have not supported the case of the
prosecution and hence they were treated as hostile witnesses.
(iii) PW6 is the doctor who treated the PW1. PW7 is the Village
Administrative Officer spoken about the cutting of trees in the area
which belongs to the Forest Department. PW8 and PW9 are police
officers spoken about the receipt of complaint, registration of the case,
investigation and about filing of final report.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However
none have been examined on their side. The learned Assistant Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
Judge, Mettur, after perusing all the above materials and on considering
the arguments advanced by either side, came to the conclusion that
prosecution has failed to prove their case and ultimately acquitted the
accused. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal, the appellant / defacto
complainant is before this Court with this appeal.
6. I have heard Mr.B.Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government
Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent police. I have also
perused the records carefully.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
it is a case wherein in the alleged occurrence, PW1 sustained grievous
injuries, further in respect to the injury sustained by him his evidence is
very clear and also the same was corroborated through the evidence
given by the medical officer. He would further submit that the minor
contradictions found in the evidence given by the PW1 and PW2 in
respect of the occurrence cannot be treated as the same is material one for
disbelieving the case of the prosecution. It is his specific submission that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
in the alleged occurrence, nearly 10 persons are participated, hence it
would not be possible to see the alleged act committed by the accused
with minute details.
8. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the
respondent police supported the contentions raised by the counsel
appearing for the appellant. In respect to the accused, though name of the
counsel is printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of them.
9. Now on considering the submissions made by the counsel
appearing for the appellant with relevant records, here it is a case as per
the evidence given by PW1, immediately after the occurrence he would
reach the police station and only after intimating about the alleged
occurrence, he reached the hospital. But contrary to the said evidence,
PW8 who is the police officer who received the complaint from PW1
gave evidence before the trial court as only after receipt of the intimation
issued by Shanmuga Hospital, Salem, he reached the hospital and
recorded the statement from PW1. Therefore the said contradictions
available in the evidence of PW1 and PW8 would create a doubt whether
the present case has been registered as stated by PW1 or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
10. The second aspect which is necessary to see in this appeal is
that the evidence given by injured witness in respect to the place on
which they sustained injury is not in correspondence with the AR copy
issued by the doctor who treated the PW1.
11. Yet another aspect which would be necessary to decide in this
appeal is that PW8 gave evidence that after securing the accused in
presence of PW4 and PW5, he recorded confession statement from the
accused and recovered the material object which are all used for
attacking the PW1 and PW2. But said evidence given by PW8 is not
supported through the evidence given by the persons who are all signed
in the said document. In fact the witnesses who are all singed in the said
document are gave evidence not in support of the case of prosecution,
hence they were all treated as hostile.
12. One another important aspect which is to be decided in this
appeal is that while at the time of trial, on the side of the accused one
copy of the F.I.R. registered in crime No.120 of 2008 was marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
Ex.D1. Now on go through the said document, it seems based upon the
complaint given by A6, the said case has been registered against the
PW1. Further, the averment found in the said F.I.R. disclose the fact that
during the time on which the present occurrence had happened, PW1
assaulted A6 and caused injury. In this regard there was a separate case
has been registered against the PW1. But by following police standing
order 588(A), the investigation officer has not conducted investigation in
both the cases. Therefore it was decided that for the injury sustained by
the accused there was no explanation from the prosecution, the same is
nothing but fatal to the prosecution. The trial court has also traversed in
the same line and came to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved
the case.
13. It is settled law, in an appeal filed as against the order of
acquittal, if two views are possible, the same has to be looked into in
favour of the accused. Herein also, as already observed, here it is a case
the genesis of the occurrence itself is doubtful. Accordingly I am of the
considered view that it is not a fit case to set aside the order of acquittal
and therefore, this Court reaffirm the order of acquittal passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur, in SC.No.148 of 2010 dated
30.09.2011. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
04.03.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
To
1. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mettur
2. The Inspector of Police,
Jalakandapuram Police Station,
Salem District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
lok
Crl.A.No.243 of 2019
04.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
