Madras High Court
A.Varadharajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 September, 2022
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.A.(MD)No.290 of 2019
A.Varadharajan .. Appellant / defacto complainant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by The Inspector of Police,
Keezhayur Police Station,
Nagapattinam,
Thanjavur District. .. 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Paneerselvam
3.Mail @ Balasubramanian
4.Appanu @ Subramaniyan .. Respondents 2 to 4 /
Accused Nos.1 to 3
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment made in S.C.No.36 of
2010, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, dated 23.11.2010 and allow this
Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
AND
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The de-facto complainant has filed this Criminal Appeal against
the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, made in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2010,
dated 23.11.2010, whereby, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons
from all the charges framed against them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant (P.W.1) is
the brother of the deceased Mariappan. The deceased was a Nattamai of the
Village and Trustee of the temple and he had collected money for the temple
Kumbabhisegam. When he demanded money from A1, there was a wordy
quarrel and A1 is said to have refused to give money to the deceased. On
15.09.2008, at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., P.W.9 is said to have informed P.W.1
that the deceased was talking with A1 in his house. He therefore, went
along with his brother P.W.2 and at that time, he saw that the deceased was
way-laid by all the three accused persons and he was attacked
indiscriminately with Aruval on the back side of the body and the shoulder
and the deceased fell down. The accused persons fled the scene of
occurrence.
3. A complaint was given by P.W.1 at about 1.00 a.m. on
16.09.2008. Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered and the
investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, final report
came to be filed against all the accused persons and the following charges
were framed against all the three accused persons :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
Sl.
Accused Rank Charges
No.
under Sections 341, 302 IPC and
1. A1 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
under Sections 341, 302 r/w.109
2. A2 & A3 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
r/w. 109 IPC
4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 and relied upon M.O.1 to M.O.9. The circumstances that
appeared against the accused persons in the evidence that was adduced by
the prosecution in the course of trial, was put to the accused persons under
Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
5. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a categorical
conclusion that the prosecution has not made out a case against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, through judgment,
dated 23.11.2010, all the accused persons were acquitted from all the
charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
6. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first respondent.
7. We have carefully gone through the materials available on
record and considered the submissions made on either side.
8. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that there
was an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint before the police and
there was absolutely no explanation for the delay either in Ex.P.1 complaint
or in Ex.P.22 FIR. The trial Court also found that P.W.1 also did not come
forward to explain the delay in preferring the complaint. The trial Court on
analyzing the evidence found that the police had already got the information
and had visited the place of occurrence on 15.09.2008 itself and the enquiry
and investigation was over by 1.00 a.m. on 16.09.2008. Hence, the trial
Court came to a clear conclusion that the complaint itself has been lodged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
thereafter and the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 clearly show that the earlier
information given to the police was completely concealed and Ex.P.1 came
into existence subsequently, only for the purpose of this case.
9. The trial Court also carefully examined the evidence of P.W.1
and found that the ocular evidence was completely in variance with the
medical evidence. The Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem had
found only one injury in the body of the deceased and whereas, P.W.1 gave a
version as if all the accused persons indiscriminately attacked the deceased.
That apart, P.W.1 came up with a version as if he came along with P.W.2 and
with the help of torch-light, they saw the deceased at the time of occurrence.
Whereas, P.W.2 in his evidence has clearly stated that he did not accompany
P.W.1 and he was in his house and he was not even aware that P.W.1 had
gone to the scene of occurrence. That apart, the trial Court also found lot of
contradictions in the evidence that was projected by the prosecution.
10. In view of the above, the trial Court came to a categorical
conclusion that the case of the prosecution lacks credibility and reliability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
and there were grave doubts and suspicious circumstances in the case as
projected by the prosecution and accordingly, the accused persons were
acquitted from all the charges.
11. In a case of appeal against acquittal, it is now a settled law
that this Court can interfere with the acquittal only when there is a glaring
infirmity in appreciation of evidence or the trial Court had given a finding
which is perverse and arbitrary. Once the trial Court on assessing the
materials, acquits the accused and if it is a "possible view", the same cannot
be reversed in appeal by this Court. Useful reference can be made in the
judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Punni and Others reported in 2008(1) MLJ
(Crl.) 700 (SC) and Chellappa Vs. State, through the Inspector of Police
reported in 2021(1) MWN (Cr.) 80 (SC).
12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the judgment of the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
[J.N.B., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
07.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
To
1.The I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights),
Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Keezhayur Police Station,
Nagapattinam,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.290 of 2019
J. NISHA BANU, J.
AND
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
CRL.A.(MD)No.290 of 2019
07.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
