S.Murugesan vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 9378 Mad

                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 27.05.2022

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                     Orders Reserved On         Orders Pronounced On
                                         27.04.2022                   27.05.2022

                                                  Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

                     S.Murugesan                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Dharapuram Police Station,
                     Dharapuram.
                     Tiruppur District.                                          ... Respondent



                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to declare the acquittal order dated 19.07.2016
                     made in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court,
                     Dharapuram as Honourable Acquittal.

                                     For Petitioner      :     Mr.R.Prabakar

                                     For Respondent      :     Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                               Additional Public Prosecutor



                     1/14



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017




                                                            ORDER

The petitioner/A1 in S.C.No.41 of 2014 who was acquitted by the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram by judgment dated

19.07.2016 filed this revision petition seeking to declare the acquittal passed

in the judgment as Honourable Acquittal.

2.The gist of the case is that on 17.12.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. near

Dharapuam Five road junction, flex board was placed by Kongunadu

Munnetra kazhagam for an agriculture meeting stated to be held in Karur.

The flex board was placed near Surya Bakery in Five road junction,

Dharapuram and the flex board was valued Rs.1,800/-. This flex board was

damaged by the petitioner and other accused due to prior enmity and

political difference. Likewise on the same day at about 4.30 p.m, another

flex board which was placed near the entrance of Dharapuram new bus

stand was also damaged. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.5820 of

2010 on 17.12.2010 on the complaint of P.W.1, the Organizing Secretary of

Kongunadu Munnetra Kazhagam, Dharapuram. On completion of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

investigation, charge sheet filed which was taken on file in S.C.No.41 of

2014 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram. During the trial, P.W.1

to P.W.8 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked. On the side

of the defence, D.W.1 to D.W.3 examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D11 marked.

On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and the

other accused. Now the petitioner seeks to declare the acquittal as honorary

acquittal. Hence, the above petition is filed.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

Trial Court failed to consider that Section 4 of the TNPPDL Act, 1992 is

attracted in this case even on a demurrer admitting the case of the

prosecution. In this case no fire or explosive substance has been used which

shows the malafideness on the part of the respondent police to falsely

implicate the petitioner. Further in this case, the defacto complainant

without license or permission erected the flex board and banner in the public

places, namely, near the bus stand and five junction road. It is the bounden

duty of the police to remove the unauthorized erection of flex board, on the

other hand had falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. Admittedly, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

the complaint/Ex.P1, P.W.1 admits that there is two rival factions in the

party and the faction of Thaniyarasu could be the reason behind the damage

to the flex board. In the FIR/Ex.P2, it is recorded that unknown persons

committed the offence and under what circumstances, the petitioner and

another were arrayed as accused is not known. He further submitted that

the petitioner had been made as a scapegoat and made to face the trial on a

false case. Hence, the defacto complainant is liable for punishment upto

three years as per Section 285-B IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- as per the

orders of this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.273 of 2008 in the case of Logu @

Loganathan vs. Inspector of Police, Thanjavur reported in CDJ 2018

MHC 7126 held that ordinary mischief caused by any individual in a fight,

they cannot be brought under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and it has

become a routine practice of the Police to implicate even the individuals

who allegedly caused damage of property worth about Rs.100/- or more,

such practice should be stopped herewith.

4.The learned counsel further submitted that in this case FIR was

registered for occurrence which had taken place at two places, one at the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

Five road junction and another near the bus stand. For these two incidents,

material object in respect of five road junction alone was produced after

eight months on 08.07.2011 and no property was produced for the incident

that took place near the bus stand. The Trial Court though refers to the

same in paragraph 29 of the judgment, thereafter left it as it is. Further, the

Trial Court in paragraph 21 of the judgment had given a finding that the

respondent police committed several irregularities. Thus, the petitioner

submitted that in this case P.W.1 is the complainant who lodged a

complaint/Ex.P1 and P.W.3 states about the damage caused to the flex

board. Palanisamy/Head Constable, who registered the FIR as well as

Elamurugan/Investigating Officer, were not examined as witnesses. In this

case except P.W.1, the other witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.5 who were projected

as witnesses to the occurrence have not supported the case of the

prosecution. Likewise, P.W.6 and P.W.7 who are the witnesses to the

observation mahazar and rough sketch not supported the case of the

prosecution. Except for the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant and

P.W.8/Investigating Officer, no other witnesses supported the case of the

prosecution. These two witnesses have also not stated about the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

involvement of the petitioner and thus, even remotely the petitioner and the

other accused could not be connected to the case.

5.He further submitted that the petitioner had a dispute with

Elamurugan/Inspector of Police which he had proved by examining himself

as D.W.1 and marked several documents. The petitioner also examined

D.W.2 and D.W.3 to confirm the improper and illegal arrest. In the arrest

memo and the arrest intimation, contradictory places shown as place of

arrest. Likewise, intimation was served to the relatives of the petitioner and

the other accused by a single intimation memo which is not proper. Though

these flaws have been recorded in the judgment, no stricture or censure

passed, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner for the reason that the

prosecution not proved the case. He further submitted that the petitioner is

an activist who was agitating for the rights of the farmers, earlier, there was

burst of crackers near his place, he lodged a complaint and no action was

taken by the Inspector of Police, against whom he sent a representation to

superior Police Officers. Hence, the Inspector of Police/Elamurugan had

grudge and motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in the above case. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

petitioner already filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2017 under Section

340 r/w. 195 Cr.P.C for perjury, which is pending before the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. Likewise, the petitioner for his illegal

detention of 20 days in the above case and for taking appropriate action,

filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14464 of 2017 seeking compensation which

is also pending before this Court. In view of the same, it is imperative that

the petitioner's acquittal to be recorded as honorary acquittal.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

expression 'Honourable Acquittal' is unknown to the Code of Criminal

Procedure or Indian Penal Code. He further elaborated the same by filing a

counter stating that the petitioner and one Nandakumar damaged the flex

board worth Rs.5,000/- which was placed near the Bakery and Dharapuram

new bus stand. On the complaint of P.W.1 case was registered, during

investigation the petitioner's role was confirmed. The respondent police

visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough

sketch, examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence and

thereafter the petitioner and the other accused were arrested. On completion

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

of investigation, charge sheet filed, the same was taken on file in

P.R.C.No.32 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram on

15.02.2011. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Dharapuram in S.C.No.41 of 2014. Before the Trial Court,

P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked. On

the side of the defence, D.W.1 to D.W.3 examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D11

marked. The Trial Court on examination of the witnesses and the materials

produced, acquitted the petitioner and the other accused. He further

submitted that the points raised now were raised earlier before the Trial

Court and the Trial Court, in its well reasoned judgment, answered the same

by observing that though there is some contradiction in the arrest memo and

arrest intimation and for preparation of single arrest intimation for the arrest

of two accused is not proper, but the same would not make the arrest illegal

and it would not vitiate the trial. Further when the petitioner and the other

accused was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, no

complaint was made and the remand is proper.

7.He further submitted that D.W.1 though projected that on the day of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

his arrest, he was attending a funeral and the time and place of arrest was

wrongly shown, D.W.2/his son had given a different version in conformity to

the case of the prosecution. Likewise, D.W.3 also confirmed about the

arrest of the petitioner. He further submitted that in this case it is an intra-

party rivalry between same political organization and at that time, a

complaint was lodged. Thereafter, it appears that the issue had been

resolved between the groups and that is the reason all the witnesses not

supported the case of the prosecution but it is not in dispute that

P.W.1/complainant lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 and he supported the case of

the prosecution. Only due to the witnesses turned hostile, the petitioner and

the other accused were acquitted. Hence, the Trial Court rightly observed in

the judgment that the prosecution failed to prove the case and acquitted the

accused. It is not a case of false implication and hence, the prayer sought for

by the petitioner seeking 'Honourable Acquittal' is not proper.

8.In support of his contention, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union

of India and others vs. Methu Meda reported in [2022] 1 SCC 1, wherein it

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

was clearly held that the law is well settled that if a person is acquitted

giving him benefit of doubt from the charge of an offence involving moral

turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically

entitle him for employment [Honourable acquittal]. He also relied upon the

decisions in the case of C.Surendhar vs. The Director General of Police

reported in 2019 [2] LW(Crl) 801 and in the case of M.Krishnan vs. The

State reported in 2014 (3) MWN(Cr.) 203(DB).

9.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials

placed before this Court, it is seen that Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2017 filed under

Section 340 r/w. 195 Cr.P.C before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Dharapuram was dismissed on 14.03.2017. While dismissing the same, the

Lower Court observed that no charges were established against

Mr.Elamurugan/Inspector of Police and Mr.Palanisamy, the then SSI of

Police. The Departmental action sought for was also rejected by the Lower

Court. The petitioner sent representation on 15.02.2017 seeking

departmental action against Elamurugan and Palanisamy, the then Inspector

of Police and SSI, departmental enquiry conducted and thereafter the same

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

was closed with intimation to the petitioner. On perusal of the records, it is

seen that the complaint lodged by P.W.1 against the other rival group in the

party, FIR registered against unknown persons and thereafter, during

investigation finding the role of the petitioner and the other accused, both of

them were arrested. As rightly contended by the Trial Court, the petitioner

and the other accused were produced for remand, at that time no complaint

was made and the remand is not illegal. P.W.1/complainant had not denied

the lodging of the complaint. On registration of the case, for cognizable

offence investigation was properly conducted, charge sheet filed, witnesses

may turn hostile not supported the case of the prosecution, it might be for

various reasons in this case, the witnesses are all from the same political

party, it is an intra-party rivalry and later the issue could have get resolved

or for various consideration they would have resiled from their previous

statement. The witnesses turned hostile and thereafter getting benefit out of

the same, and getting acquittal would no way can be termed as a Honourable

Acquittal. This Court as well as the Apex Court have held that the

expression 'Honourable Acquittal' is unknown in the criminal law, it is in the

service laws the same is employed and that to, it is clearly held that it is the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

Screening Committee or the Disciplinary Authority to decide upon each facts

of the case to consider whether it is merely an acquittal or otherwise. The

Apex Court in the judgment of Methu Meda [cited supra] held that in case

the prosecution failed to take steps to examine the crucial witnesses or the

witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of

giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honorarily

acquitted by the Trial Court. In this case, admittedly majority of the

witnesses have turned hostile. Hence, the petitioner seeking to declare the

acquittal order dated 19.07.2016 made in S.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram as Honourable Acquittal

is not sustainable.

10.Accordingly, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

27.05.2022 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram.

Tiruppur District.

2.The Assistant Sessions Jude, Dharampuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Pre-delivery order made in

Crl.R.C.No.955 of 2017

27.05.2022

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