Madras High Court
M.Ravi … vs State Rep. By on 27 June, 2025
Crl.A.No.599 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.599 of 2016
M.Ravi … Appellant/Defacto Complainant
v.
1. State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Paramathi Police Station,
(Crime No.466 of 2012) … 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. Saminathan
3. Ponnusamy ... Respondents 2 & 3/ A1 & A2
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 r/w 378 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the aquittal made in S.C.No.58 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal
on 31.08.2015 by allowing the Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Gunasekaran
for Mr.I.Abrar Md Abdullah
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran (for R1)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
Crl.A.No.599 of 2016
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.Deepan Uday (for R2 & R3)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal made in
S.C.No.58 of 2013 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge cum
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal on 31.08.2015.
2 (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd respondent
herein/first accused (A1) is the uncle of the wife of the defacto
complainant/appellant and 3rd respondent/second accused (A2) is the father-
in-law of the defacto complainant; that there were property disputes
between the defacto complainant and A2; and that on the date of
occurrence, when the accused were doing agricultural work on their land,
PW1 to PW5 questioned them; that the accused anticipating trouble by PW1
to PW5 on account of the civil dispute attacked PW1 and PW2.
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 attacked PW1 with
a spade, A2 attacked PW2 with a stick, caused simple injuries to PW2 and
thus, committed the aforesaid offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
(iii) On the complaint given by the appellant/PW1, who was taking
treatment at the hospital, an FIR was registered for the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 307 of the IPC in Cr.No.466 of 2012 by PW9, the Sub-
Inspector of Police. PW10, the Inspector of Police, took up the
investigation and filed a final report on 28.02.2013 against the accused for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 read with 109 of the IPC before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.
(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of
Session in S.C.No.58 of 2013 and made over to the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, for trial. The trial
Court framed charges against A1 for the offences under Sections 341 and
307 r/w 109 and against A2 for the offences under Section 307 and 323 IPC
and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty.'
(v) To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
P.W.1 to P.W.10, marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9 and six material
objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313
Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they
denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked
any document on their side.
(vi) The trial Court acquitted both the accused of all the offences, on
the ground that the testimony of the witnesses does not inspire confidence;
that there were several inherent contradictions in their depositions; that their
version was contrary to the earliest version given to the Doctor [PW8],
which was entered in the accident registers [Ex.P5 and Ex.P6]; and that the
parties were closely related to each other and on account of a civil dispute,
they had given exaggerated versions.
(vii) The defacto complainant / PW1 aggrieved by the said judgment
has filed the instant appeal.
3. Mr.C.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
that the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court is perverse; that the trial
Court ought not to have disbelieved PW1 to PW5, merely because there
were no independent witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution;
that entries in the accident register ought not to have been taken into
account for disbelieving the injured witnesses PW1 to PW5; and that in
view of the perversity, the judgment has to be set aside. Learned counsel
relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Naresh and Others1 and Rajesh Yadav and another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh2, in support of his submission that related injured
eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved merely because there is no
corroboration by independent witnesses.
4. Heard Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
who submitted that though the State has not filed an appeal, the prosecution
had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for setting
aside the judgment of the trial Court.
1 (2011) 4 SCC 324
2 (2022) 12 SCC 200
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
5. Mr.Deepan Uday, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3/A1 and
A2 submitted that the 2nd respondent/A1 is no more. Mr.L.Baskaran,
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) produced a copy of the death
certificate of the 2nd respondent/A1 to confirm the said fact.
6. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the view taken
by the trial Court is a plausible view and no perversity has been shown by
the appellant warranting interference in the above appeal. Pointing out to
the entries made in the accident registers and to the evidence of witnesses,
to show that those witnesses are unreliable, the learned counsel submitted
that the judgment of acquittal may not be interfered with.
7. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses. PW1
to PW5 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, of which PW1 and PW2 were
injured; PW6 is known to PW1 to PW5 and had heard about the occurrence;
PW7 had signed as a witness in the mahazars; PW8 is the Doctor who
treated PW1 and PW2 at the hospital and had made entries in the accident
registers [Ex.P5 and Ex.P6]; PW9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
registered the FIR; and PW10 is the investigation officer.
8. The prosecution case therefore rests on the evidence of PW1 to
PW5. This Court has to examine if these witnesses inspire confidence. In
the earliest version given to the Doctor, PW1 had stated that four known
persons had attacked him with Bill Hook Machette [mUths;], Knife
[btl;Lfj;jp], Spade [kz;btl;o] and Shovel/Tramp-pic/Crowbar
[flg;ghiw] at 10.30a.m. Similarly, PW2, had stated that five known
persons had attacked her at 10.30a.m., with stick [jo], Shovel/Tramp-
pic/Crowbar [flg;ghiw] and Spade [kz;btl;o]. The Doctor was
examined as PW8. The Doctor had confirmed that the entries made in the
Accident Registers [Ex.P5 & Ex.P6] were on the information given by PW1
and PW2. He had also opined that the injuries sustained by the witnesses
were simple injuries. It is not known as to how the number of accused got
reduced to two by the time the complaint was lodged at 4.00p.m. on the
same day when the witnesses were in the hospital. No explanation has been
offered by the witnesses as to why they had stated that four to five people
had attacked them with the aforesaid weapons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
9. Be that as it may. The nature of the overt act attributed to the
accused by the witnesses also is contrary to each other. PW1 had stated that
A1 had attacked him with spade. However, PW2 to PW5 would state that
A2 held the hands of PW1 and thereafter, A1 attacked him. It is also seen
from PW1's evidence that about 12 persons, who were not related to the
witnesses had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution had not chosen to
examine any of those witnesses. In fact, PW5 had stated that there were 50
persons, who had witnessed the alleged occurrence. It is also seen that all
the accused are closely related to each other. A2 is the father-in-law of the
defacto complainant and there are civil disputes between them with regard
to the sharing of the property.
10. The trial Court had further on appreciation of facts held that all
the witnesses have contradicted themselves as regards the place of the
alleged occurrence and the number of weapons said to have been used by
the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
11. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the Court
need not always view the evidence of related injured eyewitnesses with
suspicion and require corroboration in all cases. However, in the instant
case, the witnesses were not disbelieved not only because they were related
and they had civil disputes with the accused, but also because of the
inherent contradictions which make their version improbable.
12. Considering the relationship between the parties, the fact that the
independent persons who even according to the prosecution witnesses were
available and not examined and the inherent contradictions which have been
listed out by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the judgment of
the trial Court cannot be faulted with. In any case, the appellant was unable
to point out as to why the reasons for acquittal are not plausible and this
Court also finds that no perversity has been pointed out to warrant
interference in the appeal.
13. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
27.06.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : yes/no
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Namakkal
2. The Inspector of Police,
Paramathi Police Station
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 04:16:19 pm )
