Madras High Court

Vilvanathan vs Thirilogachandar on 14 September, 2023

                                                                     Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 14.09.2023

                                                     CORAM :


                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

                                              Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

                     Vilvanathan                                     ...Appellant

                                                       Vs.

                     1. Thirilogachandar
                     2. Thirunavukarasu
                     3. Shanmugam
                     4. Kasi Gounder
                     5. Gopalakrishnan
                     6. Gajendiran
                     7. Kuppu
                     8. Parimala
                     9. Santhanakumari
                     10. Sivalingam @ Samu
                     11. Ethiraj
                     12. Kanniyappan
                     13. Murugan
                     14. Anbu
                     15. Kuppan
                     16. Shanmugam
                     17. Govindaraj

                     18.The Inspector Police
                        (Crime No.15/2011 of
                        Paradarami Police Station)
                        K.V. Kuppam Circle,
                        Vellore District.                            ...Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/9
                                                                                   Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of the Criminal
                     Procedure Code, 1973, is filed against the judgment dated 16.02.2023
                     made in C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and
                     Sessions Court, Vellore.


                                        For Appellant            : Mr.E.Kannadasan
                                        For R1 to R4, R8 & R9 : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
                                        For R5 to R7, R10 to R17: Mr.R.Jayasankar
                                        For R18                 : Mr. R.Vinothraja
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)


                                                        JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the defacto complainant

viz., Vilvanathan (P.W.1) against the judgment dated 16.02.2023 made in

C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions

Court, Vellore.

2. The Inspector of Police, K.V. Kuppam Circle, registered an FIR

in Crime No.15/2011 of Paradarami Police Station based on the

compliant given by one Vilvanathan (P.W.1) against 50 named persons

and others.

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

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

3. The case of the prosecution in a condensed form is as follows :

i. The accused 1 to 18 are the residents of K. Mottur Village,

Kallapadi Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, and the complainant

Vilwananthan (P.W.1) is also residing in the same village.

ii. The accused, on account of previous enmity, during a village

festival on 16.01.2011 let the bullocks to run through the Bajanai

Koil Street, which was against the Resolution passed in connection

with Bullock Cart Race.

iii. According to the prosecution, all the accused armed with deadly

weapons unlawfully assembled and stabbed the appellant herein /

defacto complainant (P.W.1) and K.Munirathinam P.W.2 with a

knife.

iv. The accused also hit P.W.1 and P.W.2 with wooden logs and iron

rods apart from pelting stones on them.

v. After completing investigation, the Inspector of Police,

K.V.kuppam Circle filed a final report against A1 to A18 alone

before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, in

C.C.No.1/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.

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

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

vi. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, furnished copies of

records to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

vii. Thereafter, since the connected case in S.C.No.166 of 2017 was

committed to the Court of Sessions, this case was transferred as

per the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Vellore. Accordingly, S.C.No.166 of

2017 and C.C.No.1/2019 were tried jointly.

viii. The following Charges were framed against the accused:

S.No. Rank of Accused Offences

1. A1, A2, A5 to A11, A13 U/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 324 to A18 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.

                                   2.      A3 and A4                  U/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 323
                                                                      and 506 (ii) I.P.C.

ix. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

examined 10 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. M.O.1 to

M.O.3 were also adduced

x. When the accused were questioned with regard to the

circumstances appearing in evidence against them under Section

313 Cr.P.C., they denied of having committed any offence.

However, they did not examine any witnesses on their side, except

marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 during the course of cross examination of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

prosecution witnesses.

xi. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, after

analysing the evidence adduced on both sides acquitted all the

accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, vide judgment dated

16.02.2023. During the pendency of the trial A12 died and the case

against him got abated.

4. As against the judgement passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.01

of 2019, dated 16.02.2023, P.W.1, preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

5. Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan learned counsel for the appellant,

Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the R1 to R4, R8 and R9,

Mr.R.Jayasankar, learned counsel for R5 to R7, R10 to R17 and

Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing

for the 18th respondent.

6. Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the trial court, without considering the evidence adduced on the side

of the prosecution, had erroneously acquitted the accused and therefore,

the present criminal appeal should be allowed.

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

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

7. The trial court in paragraph Nos. 16,17 and 18 of its judgment

had observed thus:

“16. P.W.1 stated he was assaulted by A1 to A4. But P.W.3 stated that A1 assaulted P.W.1 Vilvanathan with wooden log and P.W.4/Megaraj stated that A1 used filthy language against P.W.1 and assaulted him with iron rod and A2 cut his left hand with knife and A3 & A4 assaulted with wooden logs on his left hand finger and P.W.5 / Saravanan stated that A1 to A4 assaulted P.W.1 with iron rods. But, the Police have seized only one knife, one wooden log and one black stone at the occurrence place. Further, it was not made clear as to which accused used the material objects 1 to 3 at the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has further stated in the cross examination that, Fwpg;ghf ahu; ahu;

; brhy;ytpy;iy” vij itj;jpUe;jhu;fs; vd;W Fwpg;gplL

17. From P.W.1's evidence it is evident that after returning from pooja the problem was started and in the occurrence place in total more than 150 persons were gathered. P.W.1 also stated that a group of persons attack with each others. All the other witnesses have stated that P.W.1 was assaulted with iron rod. But this case no iron rod was recovered.

18. P.W.8 doctor in her evidence stated that P.W.1 stated in her that mts; md;W khiy 5 kzpastpy; 4 ngu;

fj;jpahy;. fk;gpahy;. jhf;fpajpy; fhak; Vw;gl;ljhf Twpdhu;/ ,lJ gf;f bjhilapd; cs;g[wk; xU rpije;j fhak; 2/ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

tyJ ifapd; fPH;g;gFjpapy; xU fpHpe;j fhak; 3/ tyJgf;f fPH; beP;R gFjpapy; xU nkyhd rpuha;g;g[ fhak; 4/ ,lJ fd;dj;jpy; xU fd;wpa fhak; 5/ tyJ Rz;Ltpuypy; xU rpije;j fhak; njhy; MHj;jpwF ; fhzg;gl;lJ”/ So, from the evidence of doctor it is evident that P.W.1 stated to the doctor that he was assaulted with iron rod and knife by 4 persons at 5 p.m. In his evidence he stated that he was assaulted on his thigh, right hand, right shoulder, finger. But the injuries stated by the doctor are different. P.W.1 has not stated that he got injury on his chest and cheek. The injuries stated by the doctor are simple incised injuries and contusion and abrasion and these injuries may happened even any one fall on the ground.

8. Thus it is seen that the trial court had analysed the evidence

adduced on both sides threadbare. A successful prosecution of a criminal

action largely depends on proof of things, the identification of the author

of the crime and his actual commission of the same. An ample proof that

a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to

convincingly prove the offender's identity. The presumption of

innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification

that is full of uncertainties.

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

Crl.A.No.991 of 2023

9. In the result

i. The appeal is dismissed.