Madras High Court
Muthu .. Revision vs State Represented By on 27 September, 2022
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
Muthu .. Revision Petitioner/
Defacto Complainant/ P.W-1
Vs.
1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Annavasal Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.196/2008) .. Respondent/Complainant
2.D.Rajendran
3.K.Palanivelu .. Respondents/Accused 1 & 2
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2019
Page No.1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
in S.C.No.12 of 2010 passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
for R2 &R3
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of
the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai,
made in S.C.No.12/2010, dated 08.09.2010, acquitting the accused
persons from charges under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
2. This appeal was initially filed by the father (P.W-1) of the
deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the father died and this
Court proceeded to hear the appeal since P.W-2 is a victim and was the
mother of the deceased.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and the deceased
Kumar @ Sasikumar are well known to each other. The deceased is said
to have stayed in the house of A1 on many occasions. The further case of
the prosecution is that A1 developed an illegal intimacy with one
Muthumeenal, who was the wife of one Murugesan. The deceased is said
to have seen A1 and the said Muthumeenal together. He had threatened
A1 that he will inform the illegal intimacy to his wife and A1 pleaded
with the deceased not to reveal about the relationship to anyone.
However, the deceased had spoken about the relationship to the mother
of A1 and some others belonging to the locality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
4. A1 on coming to know of the same, got enraged against
the deceased and decided to do away with him. Hence, A1 had informed
about his intention to A2 and both of them entered into a criminal
conspiracy. Pursuant to the same, they called the deceased on
27.10.2008 at about 4.00 p.m., and took him to the scene of crime and
informed the deceased that if he consumes one full bottle of liquor, he
will be paid a sum of Rs.300/-. The deceased believed A1 and A2 and
they all met along with Selvam and Radhkrishnan near PRP Granites.
While the deceased was consuming liquor, A2 is said to have added
pesticide to the liquor. The deceased not knowing the same, consumed
the liquor in entirety and he fell down. The deceased was taken in his
vehicle and was dropped in the house of A1. Thereafter, in order to
conceal the entire incident, A1 and A2 took the deceased to the
Government Hospital, Pudukkottai. It was found that the deceased died
due to consumption of pesticide which was detected as Organo
Phosphorus poison.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
5. A complaint was given by P.W-1 in this regard and an
FIR came to be registered. On completion of investigation, the final
report was filed and charges were framed against the accused persons
under Sections 120 (b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution examined
P.W-1 to P.W-15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.
6. The trial Court, on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and after appreciating the evidence available
on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution did not prove the
case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, acquitted the accused
persons from all charges. Aggrieved by the same, P.W-1 filed a revision
petition before this Court and the same was converted into an appeal
against acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
7. Heard Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and the materials available on record.
9. The deceased was the adopted son of P.W-1. This witness
also knows about the accused persons and their relationship with the
deceased. The Court below, on appreciating the evidence of P.W-1, came
to a conclusion that there were two complaints given by this witness. The
first complaint was given to the Panchayat President on 27.10.2008 at
10.15 p.m. , to the effect that his son died due to severe abdominal pain
and the next day, yet another complaint was given at 10.00 a.m, as if the
deceased was found in the mortuary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
10. Along with the evidence of P.W-1, the evidence of
P.W-2, who is the mother of the deceased, was also considered. She also
tendered evidence on the same lines of P.W-1.
11. P.W-3 stated in his evidence that he saw the accused
persons at about 5.00 p.m., and there was a boy, who was lying down and
they asked P.W-3 to lift the boy since he was in an inebriated condition.
P.W-4 has also given evidence to the same effect.
12. P.W-5 has stated in his evidence that he went to the
house of P.W-1 on the Deepavali day and saw the deceased and he went
along with the deceased to Koothanipatti and again dropped the deceased
in the house of P.W-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
13. The evidence of P.W-9 also assumes significance in this
case since she is the wife of the deceased and she is said to have enquired
with A1 as to the whereabouts of the deceased and he informed her that
he was completely inebriated and is sleeping in the house. She is said to
have informed the same to P.W-1. Thereafter, she came to know about the
demise of her husband.
14. The Court below, on considering the evidence of all the
above witnesses, came to a categoric conclusion that the prosecution was
not able to establish the so called illicit relationship between A1 and
Muthumeenal and that in a case involving circumstantial evidence, the
motive itself was not established by the prosecution.
15. The Court below also considered the evidence of the
doctor and the chemical analyst and the documents marked through
them. On considering the same, it was found that there was no proof to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
show that the poison was mixed along with liquor and the liquor was
consumed by the deceased and as a result, he died. The final opinion of
the doctor shows that the deceased would appear to have died of Organo
Phosphorus Insecticide poison and ethyl alcohol. However, a definite
final opinion was not able to be given since the prosecution did not even
recover the so called bottle in which the alcohol was stored and
consumed by the deceased. In other words, except the oral evidence of
the witnesses, there was not a single material object that was recovered
in this case regarding both the alcohol as well as the insecticide which
was mixed with the alcohol.
16. In view of the above, the trial Court came to the
conclusion that the guilt of the accused cannot be established on mere
assumptions without there being a definite proof on the side of the
prosecution. Thereby, the Court below acquitted the accused persons
from all charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
17. In the considered view of this Court, acquittal of an
accused person by a competent criminal Court only reiterates the
innocence of the accused persons. In an appeal against acquittal, the
judgement and order of acquittal will be interfered only when there is
glaring infirmity in appraisal of evidence or where the finding is perverse
or arbitrary. Once the trial Court, on assessing the available materials,
acquits the accused person and if it is a 'possible view', the same cannot
be reversed in appeal. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of
the Apex Court in N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
2021 (1) MWN (Crl) 602 (SC), in this regard.
18. In view of the above finding, this Court does not find
any grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the trial Court
and accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. The judgment
and order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
Pudukkottai, made in S.C.No.12/2010, dated 08.09.2010, acquitting the
accused persons from charges under Sections 120(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC
is hereby confirmed.
[J.N.B, J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
27.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Annavasal Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU, J
AND
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
PJL
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.306 of 2019
27.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
