Madras High Court
K.Mariappan vs Pappathi : ... on 10 January, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 10/01/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.875 of 2019 and 157 of 2020
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.1394 and 1397 of 2020
(1)Crl.RC(MD)No.875 of 2019:-
K.Mariappan : Petitioner/2nd Respondent/A1
Vs.
1.Pappathi : R1/Appellant/De-facto Complainant
2.State represented by
Sub Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
(Crime No.205 of 2015): R2/1st Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside
the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the
petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track
Mahila Court), Karur, in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2018,
dated 31/10/2019, by reversing the order of acquittal
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, in CC No.147
of 2018, dated 01/08/2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh
For 1st Respondent : No appearance
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2)Crl.RC(MD)No.157 of 2020:-
Kamaraj : Petitioner/2nd Respondent/A2
Vs.
1.State through
Sub Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur District.
(Crime No.205 of 2015) : R1/Respondent/Complainant
2.Papathi : R2/Appellant/De-facto
Complainant
3.K.Mariyappan : R3/Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the
records relating to the judgment passed in C.A No.119 of
2019, dated 31/10/2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, reversing the judgment
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, in C.C
No.147 of 2018, dated 01/08/2018 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirunavukkarasan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For R2 and R3 : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
These criminal revisions have been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed
upon the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Mahila Court), Karur, in Criminal Appeal No.119 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2018, dated 31/10/2019, reversing the order of acquittal,
dated 01/08/2018 passed in CC No.147 of 2018 by the
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur.
2.The facts in brief:-
PW1 is the de-facto complainant. On 07/04/2015 at
about 03.00 pm, when she along with her daughter passing
through their ancestral property situated in N.T.S Palace,
at that time, one Mariappan and one employee namely Kamaraj
were removing the machine wheels from the Mill. She made
objection to remove the wheels stating that the property
belongs to them. Over which, the above said Mariappan
abused in filthy language. When that was objected by her
daughter, she was also abused in filthy language. He also
assaulted with hands and pushed her down. When that was
sought to be prevented by her daughter, she was also
assaulted. At that time, one Selvamathi and Valliammal were
present. Both were taken to Karur Amaravathi Hospital for
treatment, where they undertook treatment for 17 days. The
Police recorded her statement. Over which, a case has been
registered. Her complaint was marked as Ex.P1.
3.PW8-Doctor was on duty in the Amaravathi
Hospital, Karur, on 07/04/2015 at about 06.35 pm, one
Barathi and another person admitted in the hospital stating
that they were assaulted by two known persons with iron rod
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and stick. On examination, she has stated that she is
expressing pain on the chest portion and on further
examination by MRI scan, one abrasion was found on the back
side. One Papathy was also examined and at that time, she
was found one multiple abrasion on various parts of the
forelegs measuring 1 x 1 cm abrasion on the left leg
region. Both were discharged from the hospital, on
23/04/2015, all the injuries were found to be simple
injury.
4.During their hospitalization, PW9 visited the
hospital, on intimation, on 10/04/2015 and recorded the
statement of PW1 and registered a case in crime No.205 of
2015 for the offences under sections 294(b), 323, 506(i)
IPC r/w section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Woman Act. She undertook investigation and recorded the
statement of the witnesses and after completing the
investigation process, she filed a final report before the
trial court stating that all the accused persons have
committed the offences under sections 294(b), 323, 506(i)
IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Harassment of Women Act.
5.PW2 is the daughter of PW1 and has stated that
she sustained injury due to the assault made by A1-
Mariappan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.PW3 also went to the place of occurrence, on
hearing the information that the accused are removing the
wheels from the mill. PW4, PW5 and PW6 turned hostile, who
were stated to be the eye witness to the occurrence.
7.After completing the investigation process, final
report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur
and it was taken on file as CC No.147 of 2018.
8.During the trial process, on the side of the
prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and 6 documents
marked. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined
and no document was marked.
9.At the conclusion of the trial process, the trial
court found that the prosecution has not proved the case
beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted all
the accused.
10.Against which, appeal was preferred by the de-
facto complainant in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2018 before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Karur.
11.After hearing the parties, the learned appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
court reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the
trial court ad convicted the accused under sections
294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Harassment of Woman Act and sentenced A1 to
pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- with default clause for the
offence under section 294(b) IPC; and A1 and A2 were
convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
3 months each and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with
default clause for the offence under section 323 IPC. They
were also convicted and sentenced to undergo one year
simple imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each with default clause for the offence under section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
12.Against which, these criminal revisions have
been preferred by A1 and A2.
13.At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would submit that the principles that have
been set out to be followed, while entertaining the appeal
against the acquittal were not properly applied by the
appellate court and for that purpose, he would rely upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shailendra Pratap and another vs. State of U.P [(2003)1 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
761]. By pointing out this judgment, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would submit that unless
acquittal was found to be perversed in nature, the
appellate court should not have interfered into the order
of acquittal. On more than one occasions, principle to be
followed is stressed, while entertaining appeal against the
acquittal has been brushed and unless acquittal has been
passed in a perversive manner, no interference can be made
by the appellate court.
14.With this principle in mind, let us go to the
evidence on record, before we go into the reasoning of the
trial court and the appellate court for acquittal and
reversal.
15.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that there are material
contradictions between the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and
PW4. For that purpose, he would draw the attention of this
court to the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
16.PW1 has stated that on the date of the alleged
occurrence along with her daughter namely PW2, she was
passing through the above said mill belongs to them in an
Auto. But contra is the evidence of PW2. She has stated
that they were passing through the above said mill along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with PW3 and PW4. On hearing the information that the
accused were removing the wheels of the machineries, they
went to the place and at that time, they were abused and
assaulted and they were rescued by PW3 and PW4.
17.PW1 has stated that at the time of the above
said occurrence, PW3 and PW4 were present in that place.
But they were not given any information that they were
walking through that place. This is the material
contradiction.
18.Let us go to the evidence of PW3 and PW4. PW3
has stated that on 07/04/2015, they visited the property,
on hearing the information that the accused are removing
the wheels. PW1 was assaulted by A1-Mariappan.
19.PW4 also stated that on that particular date,
all of them went to the place of occurrence and A1 opened
the door. On seeing PW1, he abused her with filthy
language, over which, quarrel broke out between them. When
that was questioned by PW2, A2-Kamaraj assaulted her with
hands. PW1 was assaulted by A1. In the above said
occurrence, she also fell down.
20.As mentioned earlier, the eye witnesses, who
were neighbours namely PW5 and PW6 turned hostile. So from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the evidence of PW1 to PW4, it is clear that they are
contradicted with each other with regard to the very manner
of the occurrence itself. Who assaulted her and what sort
of injury sustained by them has not been clearly spoken by
them. Even as per the evidence of the Doctor-PW8, who
treated the injured, has not found any external injuries to
PW1.
21.So from the above said evidence of PW3 and PW4,
we can infer that there was some scuffle between PW1 and
PW2 on the one part and the accused on the other part.
Because of the scuffle, the above said abrasions would have
taken place.
22.The scuffle has been given aggregated version.
Even though, it is stated that the offence said to have
been taken place, on 07/04/2015, on the date of the
occurrence itself, both were admitted in the hospital. As
per the evidence of the Medical Officer, both were admitted
in the hospital at 06.35 pm. The occurrence said to have
been taken place at about 03.00 pm on that date. After a
gap of three hours, they said to have went to the hospital.
23.But from the evidence of PW9, it is seen that
intimation was received, on 10/04/2015 and the reason for
the delay is not properly explained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24.According to the evidence of PW8, intimation was
immediately sent to police, over the admission of PW1 and
PW2. But, as mentioned earlier, PW9 has stated that they
received the information only, on 10/04/2015.
25.In the light of the above said material
contradictions and considering the relationship of the
parties, as mentioned earlier, there is every possibility
of scuffle between them. This has been given exaggeration
by PW1 and PW2. Without any serious injury, they remained
in the hospital for 20 days.
26.In the light of the above discussion, let us go
to the finding of the trial court and the appellate court.
27.With regard to the delay in registering the FIR,
it was observed by the trial court that no proper
explanation was offered by the prosecution, since
intimation alleged to have been sent by PW8, on 07/04/2015
at about 06.35 pm. But PW9 has stated that she returned to
duty, on 10/04/2015 from the bundobust duty. At that time,
she was informed about the intimation from the hospital. On
which date, the intimation was received by the Station
House officer is not available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28.With regard to the occurrence itself, as
mentioned earlier, there are material contradictions
between PW1 and PW2, that also taken into account by the
trial court.
29.With regard to the availability of PW3 and PW4,
it was observed by the trial court that if really, they
were available in the place of occurrence, they would hve
taken the injured to the hospital and accompanied. But the
evidence of PW8 is that PW1 and PW2 on their own came to
the hospital and got themselves admitted. This has been
taken into account by the trial court.
30.With regard to the weapons also, the trial court
found that they are material contradictions, corroborated
each other with regard to the weapon of assault. So
considering those circumstances only, the trial court
recorded the finding of acquittal.
31.Now let us go to the judgment of the appellate
court. It believed the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and
also taken into account the treatment period.
32.It has also been observed by the appellate court
that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on
record and so, it interfered into the judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
acquittal. But the reasoning does not satisfy the
requirement of law. As stated above, the trial court has
taken into account the material contradictions and factual
circumstances also, so it cannot be termed as perverse in
nature. On re-appreciation of reasonings only, the
appellate court rendered the judgement of conviction.
33.As mentioned earlier, improvements have been
made by PW1 and PW2 over the very occurrence itself.
Recovery of weapons also not made. Similarly, who assaulted
whom was not properly correlated by evidence.
34.PW3 has stated that A1 picked up quarrel with
PW1 and A2 assaulted PW2. But, she has not stated that A1
assaulted PW1, so also PW4. She has also stated that A1
assaulted PW1 with hands and pushed her down and in the
above said scuffle, she also fell down. A2 assaulted PW2
with hands. Nowhere, it has been stated that iron rod and
stones have been used.
35.As mentioned earlier, there is every possibility
of some scuffle would have occurred between the parties at
the time of the above said removal of wheels in the mill.
Exaggerated version has been made due to the motive between
them. So, I am of the considered view that the judgment of
reversal, that was passed by the appellate court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
required to be interfered by way of these criminal
revisions.
36.In the result, these criminal revisions are
allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur is hereby
set aside, confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by
the trial court. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused
persons shall be refunded to them forthwith. Bail bond, if
any, executed by them, shall stand cancelled. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
10/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Karur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Karur.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)Nos.875 of 2019 and 157 of 2020
10/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
