Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
Annalakshmi ... Appellant / Defacto Complainant (PW1)
/Vs./
1.State Rep. By,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kulithalai Sub-Division,
Karur District. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Kaviyarasu ... 2nd Respondent / Accused No.7
3.Shanmugam (Dikki) ... 3rd Respondent / Accused No.8
4.Hariharan (Vinoth) ... 4th Respondent / Accused No.9
5.Natarajan (Sales Natarajan) ... 5th Respondent / Accused No.10
PRAYER: Appeal - filed under Section 372 r/w 378 (3) & (4) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order of
acquittal against A7 to A10 passed by the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Karur, in S.C.No.74 of 2019 dated 25.04.2022 and allow the appeal.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sivaganasambandan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor (For R1)
No appearance (For R2 to R5)
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the defacto complainant
(P.W.1) against the judgment and order passed by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Karur made in S.C.No.74 of 2019 dated 25.04.2022,
acquitting A7 to A10 from all charges.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Veeramalai is the
father and another deceased Nallathambi is the brother of the defacto
complainant. The water body in Mudhalaipatti Village was encroached by
the villagers and the temple, named as Sellayee Amman Temple was built by
the first and tenth accused persons with the help of the village people by
collecting money from them. Since the water body was encroached, a writ
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
petition came to be filed by the deceased Veeramalai in W.P.(MD)No.16338
of 2016 seeking for a direction to the officials to remove the encroachment.
Since the directions were not complied with, contempt proceedings were
also initiated against the Revenue Officials. Pursuant to the same, an
inspection was conducted by the Revenue Officials on 25.07.2019.
3. The above incident is said to have created enmity between the
deceased and A1 & A10 and hence, both these accused persons decided to
eliminate the said Veeramalai and his son Nallathambi. The criminal
conspiracy was hatched on 28.07.2019 and pursuant to the same, on
29.07.2019, the deceased Nallathambi was waylaid and he was attacked
with aruval indiscriminately in various parts of his body and he died on the
spot. Thereafter, the accused persons went to the agricultural land
belonging to Veeramalai and he was attacked indiscriminately and he also
died on the spot.
4. P.W.1, who is the daughter of Veeramalai and sister of Nallathambi
lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) and an FIR came to be registered (Ex.P28). The
investigation was taken up initially by P.W.30 and later it was taken over by
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
P.W.31 and a final report came to be laid before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai as against ten accused persons. The learned
Magistrate issued copies of the documents to the accused persons and
committed the case to the Court below.
5. The Court below framed the following charges against the accused
persons:
Rank of the accused Provision of Law
A1 to A6 Sections 144, 341, 120(b) and 302 of IPC
A7 and A8 Sections 120(B) r/w Section 302, 201 r/w 302
of IPC
A9 Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC
A10 Section 109 r/w 302 of IPC
6. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.31, marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P41 and identified and marked M.O.1 to M.O.31. The defence examined
D.W.1 to D.W.5 and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The Court below marked
certain exhibits as Ex.X1 to Ex.X4. The Court below questioned the
accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, by putting the
incriminating materials collected during the course of investigation and the
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
same was denied as false. The Court below, on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt as against A1 to A6 and proceeded to convict and
sentence them under Sections 148, 341 and 302 of IPC. A7 to A10 were
acquitted from all charges. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant
has filed this criminal appeal against the acquittal of A7 to A10.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
8. Insofar as A7 and A8 are concerned, the main charges against them
are under Sections 120(B) and 201 of IPC r/w Section 302 of IPC. Insofar
as the charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned, the Court below took into
consideration the available evidence and came to the conclusion that the
charge of criminal conspiracy has not been proved by the prosecution, as
against any of the accused persons. To come to such a conclusion, the Court
below took into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. Whatever
benefit of doubt was given to A1 to A5 was also extended to A7 and A8.
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
9. Insofar as the charge under Section 201 of IPC r/w Section 302 of
IPC is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that A7 and A8 had screened
the real offenders in this case. While dealing with this issue, the Court
below took into consideration the surrender petition that was filed by A7
and A8 apprehending arrest by the respondent police and in the said
petition, they had stated that they are no way connected with the offence and
the respondent police is attempting to add them as accused. The Court
below found that there was absolutely no material to sustain the charge
under Section 201 of IPC and nothing was available to prove that A7 and
A8 indulged in screening the real offenders. Accordingly, A7 and A8 were
acquitted from the charges under Sections 120 (B) and 201 of IPC r/w
Section 302 of IPC.
10. Insofar as A9 is concerned, he was charged for the offence under
Section 201 of IPC r/w 302 of IPC. The allegation against A9 is that he
facilitated the accused to hide the weapon in his house. The Court below,
while dealing with this issue took into consideration the evidence of the
Village Administrative Officer (P.W.19). On appreciation of the evidence,
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved
that A9 facilitated the other accused persons to hide their weapons and the
motor cycle. Hence, the benefit of doubt was given in favour of A9.
11. Insofar as A10 is concerned, the charge against him is under
Section 109 of IPC r/w 302 of IPC. To sustain the charge of abetment, the
prosecution came up with a story that it was A1 and A10, who had
encroached upon the water body and constructed the temple and since the
deceased took steps for removal of the encroachment, A10 should have
abetted the accused persons to commit the crime. The witnesses, who were
examined by the prosecution in this regard did not support the case of the
prosecution and the Court, after considering M.O.22 and M.O.23, found that
these two material objects cannot sustain the charge of abetment as against
A10. The reasoning given by the Court below is that even if A10 had taken
an active role to construct the temple, that by itself is not sufficient to hold
that he has abetted the other accused persons to commit murder.
12. In the considered view of this Court, when dealing with the case
of appeal against acquittal, this Court can interfere only when there is a
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
glaring infirmity in appraisal of evidence or the finding rendered by the
Court below is found to be perverse or arbitrary. Once the trial Court on
assessing the materials, acquits the accused persons and if it is a possible
view, the same cannot be reversed in an appeal, just because some other
view is also possible, based on evidence available on record. Useful
reference can be made to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2021 (1) MWN (Crl)
602.
13. The Court below has assigned proper reasons for acquitting A7 to
A10, based on the available evidence and has taken a possible view and the
same cannot be reversed by this Court, in an appeal against acquittal. There
are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Court
below in S.C.No.74 of 2019. In the result, this criminal appeal stands
dismissed.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
01.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ta
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
To:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kulithalai Sub-Division,
Karur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The District and Sessions Judge, Karur.
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ta
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.468 of 2022
Dated
01.11.2022
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
