Madras High Court
Kavitha vs The State Rep By on 18 October, 2022
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
Dated : 18.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl. A. (MD)No.469 of 2019
Kavitha .. Appellant/Prosecution
Witness No.2
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Oddanchathram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.570 of 2010) .. Respondent/Complainant
2.Packialakshmi .. Respondent/Sole Accused
Appeal filed under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow
the above appeal and consequently, set aside the order of acquittal in respect
of the accused in relation to the offence U/S 302 IPC by means of a
judgment dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional District
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
Sessions Judge, Palani, Dindigul District made in S.C.No.100 of 2018
forthwith.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Palanivelautham
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.D.Venkatesh
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani, Dindigul, in
S.C.No.100 of 2018, dated 24.07.2019, acquitting the accused person from
the charge under Section 302 of IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was the daughter-in-
law of the deceased and there was a property dispute regarding partitioning
property of the deceased. On 07.09.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., there was a
wordy quarrel and the accused is said to have attacked the deceased with a
stick (M.O.1) on the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
3.After the completion of the investigation, a final report came to be
filed and the Court below framed charge against the accused person for an
offence under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to
P.W.13 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and C.1 to C.5 and also identified and
marked M.O.1 to M.O.9.
4.The Court below, on considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a
conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused was
acquitted from the charge. Aggrieved by the same, the daughter of the
deceased (P.W.2) has filed this appeal.
5.Heard Mr.S.Palanivelautham, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first respondent and Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
6.The Court below took into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, who
was examined as an eye witness and the version of the eye witness was that
the deceased was hit with a stick (M.O.1) in the head and he died on the
spot. However, P.W.8, who was the doctor, who conducted the postmortem
and through whom the postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P.7, has
stated that the head of the deceased was crushed and the brain was also
crushed and it was seen outside. He opined that such an injury can never be
caused by M.O.1 and such kind of injury is possible only when a big stone
is thrown on someone's head. The Court below took into consideration the
photographs marked as M.O.2 where it was noticed that the face and the
head of the deceased was totally crushed and there were multiple fractures
on the skull bone. Hence, the Court below came to a conclusion that only if
there are repetitive blows inflicted on the head, such injuries are possible
and the case of the prosecution is as if the death was caused by a single
blow given with M.O.1, is completely unsustainable and unbelievable.
7.This Court does not find any glaring infirmity in the appraisal of the
evidence and there is no perversity or arbitrariness in the judgment passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
by the Court below. The Court below has given a possible view for
acquitting the accused person and the same can never be reversed in an
appeal filed against the acquittal. The law on this issue is too well-settled
and the usefull reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of N.Vijayakumar-vs-State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
2021(1) MWN(CR)62.
8.In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
18.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Ns
To
1.The Additional District Sessions Judge,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Oddanchathram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.469 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
Ns
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.469 of 2019
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
