Madras High Court
T.Eswaramoorthy vs State Rep. By Deputy ... on 6 March, 2023
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
T.Eswaramoorthy .. Appellant
/versus/
State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karumathampattu Sub Division,
Coimbatore District.
Crime No.176 of 2015 .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Crl.P.C., to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment passed against the
appellant on 24.07.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquit him
from the charge.
For Appellant :Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate(crl.side)
------
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This appeal against the order of conviction is preferred by the sole
accused, who was found guilty and sentenced him to undergo one year SI
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months SI for the
offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.09.2015 at 05.30 p.m.,
while Nagaraj (PW1) was grazing cattle in the field of Nataraj Gounder of
Mamballi village, the accused and his six years old son came in a two
wheeler and stopped at the place, where Nagaraj (PW1) was grazing the
cattle. The accused used abusive language and questioned him, why he has
not come for work in his field, but grazing the cattle in his field. Then, he
took a wooden stick and started beating Nagaraj on the right wrist and
forehead. Also kicked him over chest by his legs, causing pain and injury.
Thereafter, the accused threatened the injured witness saying if he comes
to his land again, he will be killed. The injured witness belonged to the
scheduled caste. For having abuse him by using caste name, hitting him
with stick and kicked on his chest, the prosecution has registered a case in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
Crime No.176 of 2015 under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(i) r/w 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST Act, 2015. On completion of investigation, based on the materials,
the trial Court framed charges as found in the Final Report.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses,
marked 11 exhibits and two material objects. The trial Court found that,
the prosecution has proved that the fractured injury at the left hand
sustained by PW-1 was caused by the accused using M.O.1 (Wooden
Stick). As far as the other charges are concerned, the trial Court found
that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. For
the proved charge, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year SI
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 3 months SI.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
there is an inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report by
more than 24 hours and another 24 hours in forwarding the First
Information Report to the Magistrate. The Accident Report (Ex.P6), which
is the contemporaneous document recorded soon after the incident clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
state that, PW-1 was assaulted by an unknown person. The intimation to
the police had been sent immediately after admitting PW-1. While so, the
First Information Report registered almost 24 hours after the occurrence
says that, the accused is the assailant, who caused the injury. This First
Information Report is based on the complaint (Ex.P-1) alleged to have
been given by the defacto complainant (PW-1) 24 hours after the
occurrence.
5. As far as the veracity of this complaint, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that, the complaint(Ex.P1) contains
LTI of the complainant. It is supposed to have been registered on
15.09.2015 at about 16.30 hours. Whereas, PW-1 in his chief examination
has stated that, he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance by his son
and his brother Manickam. He informed the person in the ambulance
about the identity of the assailant. On the next day, at about 10.00 a.m.,
the police came and enquired him. Whereas, contrary to PW-1 evidence,
Nandhakumar (PW-2), S/o Eswaramoorthy (PW-1) has deposed that he
and his uncle Manickam took the defacto complainant (PW-1) in the
ambulance and admitted him in the hospital. On the same day night, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
police came to the hospital and enquired. On the next day, the police came
at 10.00 a.m., and enquired his father (PW-1). Manickam (PW-3) also had
deposed concurring the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 about the presence
of police on 14.09.2015 at 10.00 p.m in the hospital. Further, they claimed
that they went to the spot soon after they heard from PW-1 about the
occurrence. But, the prosecution has not produced any document to prove
that the victim (PW-1) called his son over phone and informed the
occurrence. Further more, the defacto complainant (PW-1) in his cross
examination, has categorically, stated that he called only his daughter
Nandhini Anjali and not to his son Nadhakumar (PW-2).
6. Above all, the accident register (Ex.P6) recorded on 14.09.2015
at about 07.45 p.m., indicates that the history of case as assaulted by
unknown person using blunt wood object at 05.30 p.m., on 14.09.2015
near Mamballi. Referring the contradictions as well as the delay in First
Information Report, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that, it is the concocted story of the defacto complainant
(PW-1) to wreck vengeance to the earlier incident in which, the field of the
accused was set to fire and there was animosity between the villagers of
the accused and the villagers of the defacto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
State submitted that the entry in the Accident Register was made based on
the information given by the person, who accompanied the injured person,
since the injured person was not in a position to talk. The intimation from
the hospital though reached on the same day, the statement of the injured
was recorded only on the next day, soon after he regained conscious. The
reason why the delay in registering the First Information Report and
forwarding it to the Judicial Magistrate is explained by the Investigating
Officer. Having identified the assailant and the weapon used to attack PW-
1 and his evidence being cogent, the entry made in the accident register
(Ex.P6) cannot be given much importance.
8. The learned Government Advocate (crl.Side) also submitted that
in the statement of the injured, his LTI was obtained because he was not in
a position to sign, due to injury in his hand. The witness has also
reconciled the fact that Manickam (PW-3) is also known as Rangasamy
and therefore, the entry in the accident register that the injured was
brought to the hospital by Rangasamy is not an erroneous entry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
9. It is the case, where the defence has taken a plea of ulterior
motive to fix him. No doubt, the defacto complainant(PW-1) has sustained
fractured injury and the same has been proved through medical records.
However, it is highly doubtful whether the said injury was caused by the
appellant. Because it is not the case of the defacto complainant (PW-1)
that he and the accused are unknown to each other, but the Accident
Register says PW-1 was attacked by unknown person. Next, PW-1 and
PW-3 had consistently deposed that the police came to the hospital on
14.09.2015 at 10.00 p.m. If really, the defacto complainant (PW-1) was
conscious at that time, they could have recorded his statement. Even
otherwise, PW-2 had gone to the spot, receiving information from PW-1
and took PW-1 in the ambulance to the hospital, PW-2 could have given
statement about the occurrence for the prosecution to set the criminal law
in motion. Those statements providing information about the offence
suppressed. Surprisingly, the investigating officer states that he went to the
hospital on 15.09.2015 at 15.00 hours and recorded the statement of PW-
1 at about 16.30 hours. While the Accident Register (Ex.P6) does not
disclose about the identity of the assailant, after 24 hours when the First
Information Report registered, A1's name has been fixed as an assailant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
To add more suspicion to the prosecution case, the First Information
Report sent to the Magistrate only on the next day and received by the
Magistrate at 12.00 noon on 16.09.2015.
10. Finally, the evidence of the defacto complainant (PW-1) is that
while he was grazing the cattle in the field of Nataraj Gounder, the accused
came and questioned him how dare he graze the cattle in his field, when he
refused to come and work in his field. Whereas, admittedly, the accused
was grazing the cattle in the field next to the Nataraj Gounder as seen
from the sketch Ex.10. The sketch prepared by PW-10 indicates, the scene
of occurrence is in the field of Nataraj Gounder. This contradiction cannot
be ignored as the minor contraction, since the person hailing from the
place of the defacto complainant and the persons from the accused area
had previous animosity and fire accident in the filed of the accused is
suspected to be the handy work of the villagers of the complainant. The
alleged verbal quarrel itself for not coming to his field work but use his
field for grazing the cattle. When the prosecution unable to fix the area of
scene of occurrence then the reason for quarrel fails.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
11. In the said circumstances, the non-examination of the real
person, who admitted the accused to the hospital; failure to collect the
details of the the person, who took the accused to the hospital by
ambulance; inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report and
forwarding the same thereafter to the Magistrate; contradictions in the
Accident Register and the evidence of PW-1 regarding the identity of the
assailant cumulatively renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. Hence,
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.19 of
2016 dated 24.07.2020 is hereby set aside.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore
made in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2016 dated 24.07.2020 is hereby set aside. Fine
amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. The
accused/appellant is set at liberty to released him forthwith, unless his
presence is required in connection with any other case. Bail bond, if any,
executed by the accused shall be refunded to him.
06.03.2023
Index:yes/no
ari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
To:
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karumathampattu Sub Division,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
ari
Crl.A.No.335 of 2020
06.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
