Madras High Court
V.Saravanan vs / on 5 February, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.59 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:05.02.2025
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.59 of 2022
V.Saravanan, aged 47
S/o Veerasami Gounder,
B.K.Nagar,
Kalitheerthan Kuppam,
Mathakadipattu post,
Pondicherry. .. Appellant/defacto complainant
/versus/
1.State rep.by its Inspector of Police,
Valavanur Police Station,
Villupuram District. .. Respondent/Complainant
2.Moorthy, aged 56,
S/o Periyathambi
3.Santhosh, 31,
S/o Moorthy,
both residing at Mariamman Koil Street,
Poosaripalayam, Villupuram District. .. Respondents/Accused
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., praying
to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order of acquittal dated
02.03.2021 passed in S.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of II Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.59 of 2022
For Appellant :Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For R1 :Mr.L.Baskaran
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 and R3 :Mr.K.Gandhikumar for
Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan
----
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is the victim/defacto complainant in S.C.No.158
of 2019, had filed this Criminal Appeal, challenging the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram
dated 02.03.2021, whereby the respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted.
2. Gist of the prosecution case is as follows:-
The defacto complainant, Saravanan, who is the lessee, has been
cultivating the land of about 5 acres belonging to one Kuppusamy, the father
PW-2 and PW-3. There is a property dispute between Kuppusamy's elder
brother Periyathambi's sons Murthy and Santhoh, who are the accused, with
Kuppusamy's family and the defacto complainant. In the morning hours on
22.04.2018, when the witnesses Ravi, Guru, Ramu and Vasanth were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cleaning the land and plucking the coconuts from his land, the accused came
there and abused the witnesses in filthy language. Due to wordy quarrel, the
accused attacked the defacto complainant with M.O.1 (Aruval) and caused
cut injury on the shoulder of PW-1. Immediately, he was taken to the
Government Hospital for taking treatment. On the information given by the
Hospital authorities, a case registered against the accused and on completion
of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused persons under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC before the concerned
Court.
3. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, thirteen witnesses
examined as PW-1 to PW-13 and thirteen documents were marked as Exs.P1
to P13 and one material object was marked as M.O.1. On the side of the
defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The trial
Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the
accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first accused/2nd respondent herein has been charged with the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC and the second accused/3rd
respondent herein has been charged with the offences under Sections
294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. As regards the second accused charged with
the offence under Section 323 of IPC, the eye witnesses PW-2[Mr.Ravi] and
PW-3[Mr.Vasanth] who are present in the scene of occurrence, not deposed
that the first accused attacked PW-1 by using M.O.1 Aruval on 22.04.2018.
PW-1 is a lessee under one Kuppusamy. Though the eye witnesses Ravi
(PW-2), Mr.Vasanth (PW-3), Guru (PW-4) and Ramu(PW-5) had gone to
the coconut field to clean it, the accused 1 and 2 restrained to pluck the
coconut, thereby a wordy quarrel arose between them. At that time, PW-1
questioned the accused, the accused abused PW-1 in filthy language and
when the first accused attacked PW-1 with Aruval on his neck, which was
evaded and fell on his left shoulder thereby caused cut injury. Thereafter,
PW-1 was taken to Mundiyampakkam Government Hospital and given
treatment and on information sent to PW-12 (Tr.Balakrishnan, Inspector), he
came to the hospital and registered complaint [Ex.P1] and thereafter,
registered First Information Report in Crime No.382 of 2018, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
marked as Ex.P9. PW-13 [Tmt.A.Lakshmi, Inspector] had taken up the
investigation and preferred Observation Mahazar and rough sketch and also
recorded confession statements of the witnesses PW-1 to PW-8 and
thereafter, recorded the statement of the accused and arrested the accused in
the presence of PW-6 and PW-8 and recovered MO.1 and thereafter, filed
final report before the concerned Court.
5. These facts are clearly spoken by the injured (PW-1) and the other
eye witnesses PW-2 to PW-5. In the presence of the eye witnesses,
Observation Mahazar was prepared and statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. were recorded. The only defence taken by the respondents 2 and 3 is
that M.O.1 had accidentally fell on PW-1 and he sustained injury which is
contrary to the evidence given by the eye witnesses. If the defacto
complainant (PW-1) had not timely avoided the attack by the first accused,
the life of the defacto complainant could have been in danger. The trial
Court though admitted the presence of the witnesses, gave benefit of doubt
to the accused due to minor contradictions and acquitted them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. As regards the motive, there is a civil dispute between the accused
and PW-2 and PW-3 regarding property and boundary. PW-1 is only the
lessee under the father of PW-2 and PW-3 and therefore, the accused
targeted PW-1 and attacked him. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is
perverse and the same has to be reconsidered and the judgment of acquittal
to be reversed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3
submitted that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the
witnesses and rendered well considered judgment of acquittal. In this case,
the respondents 2 and 3 and PW2 and PW3 are close relatives. With regard
to the enjoyment of the land and boundary, there is a dispute between them
and civil suit is also pending between them before the civil Court. PW-1
taking advantage of the injury sustained projected the case against the
respondents 2 and 3 as if the first respondent assaulted PW-1 with
M.O.1(Aruval). In this case, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 are contrary to
each other and PW-3 and PW-4 deposed that they came to the scene of
occurrence later. In respect of the property dispute that arose between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused and PW-2 and PW-3, civil suit is pending before the trial Court.
PW-1 narrates that the first accused attacked on the right shoulder of PW-1
using M.O.1. It is seen from the accidental register (Ex.P8) that on the left
shoulder, only one cut injury which would have been occurred due to
accidental fall of M.O.1 and the arrest and recovery of M.O.1 is highly
doubtful. PW6-Village Administrative Officer and PW-8 Village Assistant
are the witnesses for arrest and recovery of material object M.O.1. PW-6 and
PW-8 deposed that M.O.1 was recovered from the roof on disclosure made
by the first respondent. On the other hand, the other eye witnesses deposed
that MO1 was recovered from the scene of occurrence. The Doctor[PW-11]
who treated the injured person, in his evidence admits that the defacto
complainant came to the hospital with blood stained cloth, but in this case,
no such material object recovered. The Doctor also admits that M.O.1
weapon was not shown to him. But, PW-13 had given an explanation that
M.O.1 picture shown to the Doctor from his mobile phone, which is an
improvised version. PW-1 states that his cloth was soaked with blood stain,
but no material object was produced in this case. PW-9 and PW-10 have not
supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the trial Court had given a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
well considered judgment, which needs no interference.
8. This Court considered submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 and 3, and perused the records available.
9. In this case, the defacto complainant PW-1[Saravaran] is the
injured witness.The Doctor PW-11[Mr.Vadivel] examined the injured
witness(PW1). From the accident register (Ex.P8) it is seen that except one
cut injury, there is no other injury and the Doctor gave an opinion that the
injury is simple in nature. The case involves a quarrel regarding property
dispute between the accused and the father of PW-2 and PW-3. Due to
exchange of words, the first accused said to have grabbed M.O.1 weapon
from PW-1 and pushed PW-1 down and thereafter,attacked on the neck of
the defacto complainant and there is no evidence to corroborate his
contention and there is no clear intention to attack PW-1. Admittedly, civil
suit regarding property and boundary already been pending between them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. PW-4 and PW-5 the other eye witnesses clearly deposed that they
came to the scene of occurrence later and PW-1 is lessee under PW-2 and
PW-3, who are the sons of one Kuppusamy. In this case, the recovery of
M.O.1 and arrest of the accused are doubtful since there is contradiction
with regard to recovery of M.O.1(Aruval) between PW-6 and PW-8. The
other witnesses PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 have not supported the case
of the prosecution. In this case, admittedly, there is no wound certificate, X-
ray or any other material records to sustain grievous injury. On the other
hand, the Doctor gave the opinion that the injury is simple in nature.
11. This Court is aware of the fact that this is an appeal against
aquittal. Finds, there is no serious perversity and erroneous finding. When
two views are possible, the view in favour of the accused, as taken by the
trial Court, should be considered.
12. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Appeal stands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Assistant
Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.158 of 2019 dated 02.03.2021 is
hereby confirmed.
05.02.2025
ari
Index:yes/no
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
To
1.The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ari
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
