Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Thangaraj vs Vadamalai
2023 Latest Caselaw 854 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 854 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2023

Madras High Court
Thangaraj vs Vadamalai on 23 January, 2023
                                                                               Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 23.01.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020
                 Thangaraj                                                         ...   Petitioner

                                                   Vs.
                 1. Vadamalai

                 2. Sathiyamoorthy

                 3. State represented by
                    The Inspector of Police,
                    Pudhuchathiram Police Station.                           ... Respondents

                  Prayer:

                           Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to

                 call for the records and set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.126 of 2018 dated

                 20.09.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,

                 Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.44 of 2016 dated

                 27.11.2018 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

                 Portonovo and allow the revision.




                 1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

                                  For   Petitioner   : Mr.A.Praveen kumar

                                  For R1 & R2        :M/s.C.Prakasam

                                  For R3             : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                       Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                        *****

                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment

dated 20.09.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.126 of 2018 on the file of the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment of

acquittal dated 27.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the

learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo.

2. Third respondent police registered the case in Crime No.280 of 2015

against the first and second respondents based on the complaint given by the

revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.

After investigation, the third respondent police laid a charge sheet before the

learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo. The learned

Magistrate has taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.44 of 2016 and framed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

the charges against the first and second respondents/accused for the offence

under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate

has not found the accused guilty and acquitted them from the abovesaid

charges. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the defacto-complainant

filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Crl.A.No.126

of 2018. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on

either side and re-appreciated the evidences, dismissed the appeal by

confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate.

Aggrieved over the same, the defacto-complainant has filed the present

Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

3. Specific case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2015 at about

8.00pm, the respondents 1 and 2/accused persons came to the house of one

Kaliyamoorthi and enquired the defacto complainant/revision petitioner about

his father Kaliyamoorthi and abused his father with filthy language and also

threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the defacto complainant has

lodged a complaint before the third respondent police herein against the

respondents 1 and 2.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

4. Though several opportunities were given to argue the matter, today,

when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner/defacto complainant has sought time for arguing the matter. Since

the Calendar Case is of the year 2016 and the Criminal Revision Case is

pending from 2020, this Court is not inclined to adjourned the matter further

and inclined to decide the matter on merits.

5. While disposing the case, both the Courts below elaborately discussed

about the evidence of all the witnesses and materials, not found the respondents

1 and 2/accused guilty and acquitted them from all the charges. Both the

Courts below have also pointed out the contradictions between the evidence of

all the witnesses and also the prior animosity between both the revision

petitioner/defacto complainant and the respondents1&2/accused. No

corroborative evidence has been made by the prosecution in this case. No

plausible explanation has been given for delay in filing the complaint and

registering the case. Presence of all eye witnesses in the occurrence place at

the time of occurrence was doubtful and the same was not established by the

revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

6. The scope of the revision is very limited and the revisional court while

dealing with the revision, has to see as to whether there is any perversity in the

appreciation of evidence in the judgment. Therefore, while deciding the

revision, the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the appellate court

and re-appreciate the entire materials. On the reading of the materials, both

the Courts below have passed concurrent judgments and rightly acquitted the

accused persons. In this case, there is no perversity in the appreciation of

evidence and there is no merit in the revision.

7. Further it is a well settled proposition of law that in appeal or revision

against the order of acquittal, the accused are getting double presumption.

Fundamentally the accused is presumed to be innocent and when the Court

below confirmed his innocence and acquitted him, the appellate court or

revisional court, while reversing the judgment of acquittal, has to find

compelling circumstances and give reasons for rebutting the presumption of

innocence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

8. On a reading of the entire materials and the judgments of both the

Courts below, this Court does not find any compelled circumstances to reverse

the judgment of acquittal recorded by the courts below. This Court does not

find any merit in the Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed.

23.01.2023

mfa Index:yes/No Internet:yes/No

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo.

3. The Inspector of Police, Pudhuchathiram Police Station.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2020

23.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter