Madras High Court
P.Rajam vs Amose @ Subramani on 9 January, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.183 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.08.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 9.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.A.No.183 of 2022
P.Rajam ... Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
1.Amose @ Subramani
2.Jeeva ... Respondents / A1 & A2
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the Judgment dated 23.11.2021 in C.C.No.1021 of
2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Alandur.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Shakespeare
For Respondents : Ms.Alamelu Mangai
JUDGMENT
The Appellant, as Complainant, filed a private complaint
against the Respondents / Accused under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for
offence under Sections 294, 341, 354, 379, 420 and 506(i) IPC.,
before the learned Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Alandur. The learned Magistrate, after taking sworn statement and
recording of witness statement taken the complaint on file, for
offence under Section 323 IPC., and thereafter, under Section 254
Cr.P.C., proceeded with the trial. During the trial, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 marked. On Completion of the
trial, the trial Court, by Judgment dated 23.11.2021, dismissed the
complaint, acquitting the Respondents from all charges. Against
which, the present Appeal by the Appellant / Complainant.
2. The case of the Appellant / Complainant is that the
Appellant and the Respondents are residing in the same area and
they are known to each other from the year 2008. In the year
2015, the Respondents approached the Appellant representing that
their daughter marriage is to be held within a period of two months
and hence, they sought for a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Considering the relationship as neighbours, the Appellant extended
the loan. Despite several months passed by, the loan was not
repaid. During March 2017, when the same was questioned, the
Respondents abused the Appellant and proclaimed that they will
not repay the amount and nothing could be done to them. On
20.03.2020, at about 9.30 p.m., the Respondents pushed the waste
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
water in front of the Appellant's house entrance, which was
objected by the Appellant and there was wordy quarrel. The
Respondents taking advantage that the Appellant's three sons not
at home, the 1st Respondent held the Appellant by hair and pushed
her to the house of the Respondents and the 2nd Respondent
slapped the Appellant. Both the Respondents physically harmed
the Appellant causing injuries to the Appellant on the neck and
cheek. During the fight, the Appellant's 4 sovereigns of gold chain
was cut in two parts, one part, the Appellant held in her hand and
other part was found missing. Thereafter, the Appellant gone to
Thoraipakkam Police Station, lodged a complaint on 20.03.2017,
though CSR 282/2017 assigned, no action taken, thereafter, she
sent a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police on
25.03.2017 and thereafter too, no action taken. Hence, a
complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alanndur in
C.C.No.2088/2023, thereafter, the same was transferred to the file
of Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur and renumbered as C.C.No.1021
of 2020.
3. During trial, the Appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P4 and her son was examined as P.W.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the
Respondents. Against which the present Appeal.
5. Mr.K.Shakespeare, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant / Complainant would submit that the trial Court not
considered and analysed the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in
proper perspective, not adverted to Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 in the manner
required, on the other hand, drawn an adverse inference on Ex.P3,
the Medical Report. The trial Court erroneously framed charges
against the Respondents only for the offence under Section 323
IPC., despite in the complaint and evidence, the Appellant clearly
stated about missing of part of the gold chain, which was taken by
the Respondents. Hence, the offence under Section 379 IPC, ought
to have been charged. Further finding that Ex.P3, dated
22.03.2017 is only a medical prescription and not a wound
certificate disclosing the injuries, and by misconception discarded
the evidence with regard to injuries sustained by the Appellant is
not proper.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the other
finding of the trial Court that Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 are contradictory to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
each other and doubtful, is not proper. The Appellant in the
complaint as well as in her evidence clearly narrates the
happenings on 20.03.2017 and her 4 sovereigns of gold chain had
been cut into two, 1-3/4 sovereign of gold chain held by the
Appellant and balance 2-1/4 sovereigns was taken away by the
Respondents. The Appellant admitted in her evidence that though
she took treatment on 20.03.2017 itself, the Medical Report was
collected two days latter. P.W.2 is her son, who corroborate the
evidence of the Appellant. This being so and when there are ample
evidence against the Respondents, the trial Court acquitting the
Respondents is not proper. He further submitted that the
Appellant filed a petition under Section 259 Cr.P.C., in
C.M.P.No.662/2019 to include the charge of theft under Section
379 IPC., but the trial Court without considering the same,
dismissed the said application on 15.11.2021, thereafter the
Judgment in this case was delivered on 21.11.2021 even without
giving sufficient time for the aggrieved Appellant to approach the
higher Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the
Judgment of the trial Court.
7. Ms.Alamelu Mangai, the learned counsel for the
Respondents / Accused would submit that the Appellant and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondents are neighbours. There was some dispute between the
neighbours. On 20.03.2017, the Respondents cleaned their water
tank and drained out the waste water in the street, which was
objected by the Appellant, there was a wordy quarrel and abuse
and nothing more. The Appellant at one stage state that, when she
was alone at home, the Respondents taking advantage of the
absence of her 3 sons, the Appellant was attacked by the
Respondents. P.W.2 is her son projects as though he has seen the
assault. The Appellant initially in her complaint, Ex.P1 states that
her four sovereigns gold chain was cut into two during the fight
and nothing more. But in Ex.P4, in her complaint to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, she gives an exaggerated version, as
though one portion of the gold chain she was holding and the other
portion was taken away by the Respondents. The Appellant not
produced any broken gold chain, which was in her possession
either to the Inspector or Police of before the trial Court.
8. It is also seen that the Appellant, belatedly, at the time of
arguments, filed a Petition for including the offence under Section
379 IPC. The trial Court considering the fact that it is a motivated
one, rightly dismissed the said application. In CSR, Ex.P2, it is
recorded that it was the dispute between the neighbours due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
drain of waste water and nothing more. The evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were contrary to each other. Further, Ex.P3 which is
projected as Medical Records is nothing but prescription for
ordinary medicines and nothing more. The trial Court considering
the evidence, analyzed in detail both oral and documents rendered
the Judgment of acquittal, which is proper, needs no interference.
Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
10. It is is not in dispute that the Appellant and the
Respondents are neighbours and there was some dispute between
them. On 20.03.2017 there was dispute with regard to draining of
waste water and thereafter, the Appellant lodged a complaint with
the Inspector of Police, Thoraipakkam. In the complaint it is only
mentioned that her gold chain was cut into two and nothing more.
But, in the complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, five
days latter, an improved version has been given that her four
sovereigns of gold chain was cut into two she could hold only 1-3/4
sovereigns of gold chain and the Respondents took away balance 2-
1/4 sovereigns of chain. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contrary with each other. The theft of gold chain is an improved
and exaggerated version. The trial Court, on proper analysis of
both oral and documentary evidence, rightly acquitted the
Respondents from the case. The Judgment is a well reasoned one,
needs no interference.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, by
confirming the Judgment, dated 23.11.2021, passed in C.C.No.1021
of 2020, by the learned Judicial Magistrate–II, Alandur.
09.01.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
MPK / vvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate – II,
Alandur
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
Pre-delivery common judgment made in
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
