Madras High Court
Chinnavedi vs State Represented By on 21 September, 2023
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
Chinnavedi ...Appellant
vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District
Crime No.562 of 2016.
2.Periyasamy ...Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside
the judgment passed in S.C.No.38 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 07.07.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Thiruvengadam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John for R1
Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan for R2
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by K.KUMARESH BABU,J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
This Criminal Appeal is arising out of the judgment of acquittal of the
second respondent/accused under Section 302 of IPC by order dated
07.07.2017 passed in S.C.No.38 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The defacto complainant has filed this
appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:
There was a land dispute between the appellant and the 2nd
respondent/accused over construction of a house by the appellant herein in
the manner obstructing the pathway to the accused property. On the day of
incident i.e., 01.09.2016 at about 2.30 p.m., when the appellant was
constructing the basement of his house, the accused intervened and
demolished the construction and threatened to kill him. On the same day at
about 3.30 p.m., when the appellant proceeded to the cement shop, the
accused intervened the appellant and there arose verbal dispute and the
accused cautioned the victim that he will murder him. Frightened and scared
about the same, the appellant had called his paternal uncle, the victim and he
reached the scene of occurrence. The accused attacked the victim on his neck
forcibly and threw him on to the road, where he fell and died on the spot. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
same was witnessed by P.W.1 to P.W.3.
3.The first respondent police registered a case against the second
respondent/accused in Crime No.562 of 2016, for the offence committed
under Section 302 IPC. The first respondent police after investigation laid a
charge sheet against the second respondent/accused before the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and the same was taken on file in
S.C.No.38 of 2017.
4. During trial, before the Trial court, on the side of the prosecution,
fourteen witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to PW.14 and nine documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to Exs.P9. Three material objects were exhibited.
5.After completing the examination of prosecution witnesses,
incriminating circumstances were culled out from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and questions were put before the accused, under Section 313
Cr.P.C., and the same was denied by the accused as false and pleaded not
guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let
in.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
6.On completion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on
either side and on considering the material facts, the Trial Court concluded
that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt punishable under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the
accused by extending the benefit of doubt on him. Challenging the judgment
of acquittal, the defacto complainant has preferred the present Criminal
Appeal.
7.Heard Mr.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, assisted
by M.Sylvester John appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.R.Karthik
Lakshmanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would
contend that on 01.09.2016, at about 4.00 p.m., when the victim was sitting
on the under pass near Bannihallipudhur bus stand, the accused with an
intention to cause death of the victim had held on his shirt collar tightly in the
front side of his neck and hit his neck with his hand saying die with this and
pushed him onto the road, the victim collapsed and died on the spot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
9.He would submit that the victim has sold his two (2) cents of land to
the father of the accused before 6 years of the incident and when P.W.1-
Chinnavedi started construction of his house in one cent of land which
belongs to him, the accused told P.W.1 to leave the way for his property and
to construct the house and had demolished the basement construction done by
the appellant. Further the accused stated that he will not leave P.W.1 without
killing him. On the same day at about 3.30 p.m. when P.W.1 proceeded to
buy cement, the accused obstructed his way and threatened him. P.W.1 has
informed the incident to his paternal uncle and at about 3.30 p.m. when the
victim has reached the scene of occurrence the accused had attacked the
victim by catch holding his shirt collar and tightened the same, thereby the
victim died out of suffocation.
10.He would further submit that on the same day of the incident P.W.1
had given a complaint to Kaveripattinam Police Station at about 18.00 hours.
On 02.09.2016, postmortem was conducted by P.W.6-
Dr.Sathishkumar, at about 11.10 A.M., and had submitted his report that the
deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to compression over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
neck. Further the report of the Doctor clearly suggest that all his internal
organs were normal, there was bluish discoloration of finger nails of the
victim and dark red contusion were seen on upper part of right and left side of
the neck muscles.
11.The learned counsel would further submit that, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are
the eye witnessses to the incident and they have deposed that the accused had
attacked the victim and pushed him onto the road, due to which the victim
had died. It is further submitted that P.W.7 and P.W.8 in their examination
had deposed that on 01.09.2016, at about 2.30 p.m., there was a dispute
between the accused and P.W.1 at the time of construction of the basement
where all intervened and warned the accused/appellant. Therefore, it is
submitted that the eye witnesses had corroborated by the medical evidence
that due to the attack on the neck of the victim by the accused, the victim had
collapsed and died, hence the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set
aside.
12.Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/accused
would contend that the victim had himself fallen from the under pass. P.W.1
to P.W.3 of the prosecution witnesses have not testified that the accused had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
heavily hit on the neck of the deceased or had tightened the collar of the
victim's shirt. He would further submit that the victim had no external
injuries. There is no sign that the victim was strangulated, as there was no
mark on the neck of the victim. The postmortem report suggest that the
victim had died out of suffocation. The doctor has also testified that there was
no possibility of asphyxiation due to the neck injury. The Doctor did not say
that the hit on the neck caused asphyxiation. The complaint given by the
P.W.1 did not allege hit or punch on the neck.
13.He would further submit that it is well evident from the prosecution
witnesses statements that there is no dispute between the victim and the
deceased. There was only quarrel between the P.W.1 and the accused.
14.He would further submit that P.W.4-Mallappan, the son of the
victim had deposed in his cross examination that there was a land dispute
between the accused and P.W.1, this dispute started 6 years prior to the
incident. It is further submitted that there was no dispute between the victim
and the accused, as the victim did not sell any land to the accused and when
there is no dispute between them, there arises no need for the accused to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
attack the victim.
15.He would further submit that, P.W.3-Shivakumar in his examination
had deposed that when the accused had attacked and pushed the victim onto
the road, P.W.3 had held the victim without falling and made him lie on the
road and had given water to him. Further P.W.2-Madhesh in his examination
had deposed that when the accused had grabbed the shirt collar of the victim,
the victim had grabbed the lungi of the accused and both dragged each other
about 2 feet away and when the deceased fell down, the accused went to
attack P.W.1, on seeing this the deceased stood up immediately and asked
why are you hitting my son. Hence the testimony of two eye witnesses are
contradictory to each other and contra to the evidence of PW-1.
16.He would further submit that there is no motive established and the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit
of doubt given by the Trial Court is right. Hence, there is no need to interfere
with the findings of the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit
that the judgment of the Court below does not call for any interference and
the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3, who were the eye-witnesses have given
contradictory evidences which do not support the case of the prosecution.
Hence, the prosecution has also not preferred any appeal.
18.We have heard the submissions on either side and have perused the
materials available on record.
19.The alleged incident had been primarily witnessed by PW-1 to
PW-3. A perusal of the deposition of PW-1 to PW-3 would clearly lead to a
irresistible conclusion that they were not cogent and supporting the case of
the prosecution. There are very many discrepancies in the deposition of the
three aforesaid witnesses, who had claimed to be present during the alleged
incident which only creates a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
20.Further, the post-mortem report also do not point out to any external
injuries that the victim had been inflicted. Both Ex.P1, the First Information
Report and the evidence of PW-1, who only supported Ex.P1 would show
that the second respondent herein had forcibly attacked the victim and had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
thrown him on the cement road which would definitely be caused injuries on
the victim, atleast bruise injury on the victim. Such is not the post-mortem
which also creates a doubt as to the manner in which the alleged incident had
taken place creating a doubt on the evidence of PW-1, who is the appellant
herein. Further, the Doctor, who had been examined, had supported the post-
mortem report and had specifically deposed that the victim had died due to
asphyxia. She had also clearly admitted that the death could not have
occurred due to the red contusion on the neck portion, which is the only
injury that had been noted during the post-mortem.
21.Further, the Court below heard in detail, evaluated each and every
allegation which was made by the prosecution and had given a detailed
findings and reasonings that such allegation as contemplated by the
prosecution does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt whereby it had
acquitted the second respondent herein.
22.Apart from the findings and reasonings given above, we also do not
find any infirmity in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
23.In fine, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the order made by the
Court below in S.C.No.38 of 2017 is confirmed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
21.09.2023
Index: yes/no
Speaking order:yes/no
pbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
To
1. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri District
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai – 104.
3.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pbn
Crl.A.No.365 of 2018
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
