Madras High Court
The Inspector Of Police vs Arul on 7 December, 2012
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Criminal Appeal (MD) No.596 of 2005 State by 1.The Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirapalli Junction R.P.F. Post, Crime No.6/97 ... Appellant/State Vs 1.Arul 2.Mohan ... Respondents Prayer Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 11.04.2005 in C.A.No.105 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirapalli modified in C.C.No.731 of 1997 dated 14.06.2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirapalli and pray this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal against the Respondents/Accused 1 and 2 and convict the accused as charged. !For Appellant ... Mr.P.Kandasamy, (G.A.) Crl. Side ^For Respondent ... Mr.Abdul Rahman for Mr.Mohideen Basha :ORDER
The Appellant/State has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of Acquittal dated 11.04.2005 passed in C.A.No.105 of 2004, by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Tiruchirappalli.
2.The case of the Appellant/Prosecution is that on 23.06.1997, at about 04.00 a.m in the early morning, the Inspector, Crime Intelligence Branch, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli Junction along with his co-employees, got the information that the Copper Communication Wires belonging to Railways was stolen and was keeping a secret watch at Ponmalai G-corner area and on that time, the First Respondent/First Accused came from the direction of North to South with a plastic bag and when he was stopped and enquired, he had not offered proper explanation and thereafter, when he was searched in the presence of co-employees, the Copper Wires weighing 1-3/4 kilogram was found to be in his possession without any receipt or bill and the same was seized in a Mahazer. Furthermore, the First Respondent/First Accused gave a confession and based on that confession, a search was conducted in the shop of Second Respondent/Second Accused at about 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. and the alleged Copper Wires of 4 copper scroll weighing 6-3/4 kilogram sold by the First Respondent/First Accused was seized and also the Second Respondent/Second Accused gave a confession and he was arrested and under the said circumstances, the First Respondent/First Accused was purported to have committed offence as per Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (since he was already punished in C.C.No.1189 of 1991) and the Second Respondent/Second Accused was purported to have committed offence as per Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
3.Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the Appellant/State (Prosecution), three witnesses were examined and 12 exhibits were marked in order to find out whether, there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the Respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A2 and as against the First Respondent/First Accused, a charge was framed under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and as against the Second Respondent/Second Accused, a charge was framed under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and it was read over and explained to them, but, they denied the charges. Later, on the side of the Appellant/Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to 23 were marked and also M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On the side of the Respondents, no one was examined and no document was marked.
4.When the Respondents/Accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, they denied their involvement in the commission of offence.
5.The Trial Court, on an appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record found the First Respondent/First Accused guilty under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with an award of fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, awarded Simple Imprisonment for three years. In respect of the Second Respondent/A2, it imposed a punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession), Act 1966 and awarded a find of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine imposed a further three months Simple Imprisonment.
6.Before the First Appellate Court viz., the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirappalli, the Respondents/Accused, as Appellants, filed C.A.No.105 of 2004. After contest, the First Appellate Court, on 11.04.2005, in its judgment, had set aside the judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.731 of 1997 dated 14.06.2004 in respect of the Respondents/Accused and acquitted them, since it found that they were not guilty of offence under Sections 3(b) and 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and resultantly, allowed the Criminal Appeal.
7.Being dissatisfied with the judgment of Acquittal rendered by the First Appellate Court in C.A.No. 105 of 2004 dated 11.04.2005, the Appellant/State (Prosecution) had preferred the present Appeal before this Court, contending that the First Appellate Court should have confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence and further the Trial Court had committed a serious error in acquitting the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused of the charges levelled against them.
8.The Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Appellant/State submits that the First Appellate Court had wrongly observed in its judgment in C.A.No.105 of 2004 that there were no railway marks on the case properties to prove them as railway properties.
9.Further, it is the submission of the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that one can identify a property of his by his long possession with such property not withstanding the fact that such property is not bearing any identification mark.
10.Advancing his argument, the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Appellant/State/Prosecution contents that P.W.3, the Certifying Official certified that the wires are 12 SWG (200 Lbs) specification, used in Railway Train Traffic Communication, serviceable in condition, not auctionable and not available in open market. Moreover, P.W.3 also identified that the wires were the same, which were reported missing.
11.The yet another argument projected by the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is that the First Appellate Court had failed to take into account that P.Ws 1 to 3, who were examined prior to the framing of charge were recalled and cross examined by the side of Respondent/Accused and therefore, no prejudice was caused to them in questioning the accused on the same day. Added further, the Respondents/Accused had not claimed that they should be questioned on the next hearing as per Section 246(4) of Cr.P.C.
12.Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the presumption of guilt under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, cannot be rebutted till the Respondents/Accused proved that they obtained that property legally and in this regard, the onus is on the Respondents/Accused to decide the same by a positive proof and not merely offering reasonable or probable explanation.
13.Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused that the First Appellate Court has rightly scrutinized the entire gamut of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had come to a consequent conclusion that in regard to the missing report (first document) there were three types of evidence viz., Whether it was given on (1) 20.06.1997 or (2) 23.06.1997 or on (3) 26.06.1997 and in the instant case, there was no proper explanation offered on the side of the Appellant/Prosecution and resultantly, the Respondents/Accused were really acquitted and the same need not be interfered with by this Court, sitting in Appeal jurisdiction.
14.At this stage, this Court in the interest of justice points out the decision in Allipuram Subbiah V. Bojja Venkata Subbamma - A.I.R. (29) 1942 Madras 672, wherein, it is held that "in a summary trial of a warrant case, omission to give proper facilities to the Accused for further cross-examination of the prosecution witness is a grave one".
15.Also, this Court points out the decision in Budhu Mian V. Emperor - A.I.R. (34) 1947 Patna 416 (C.N.137), wherein, it is held as under:
"The failure of the Magistrate to record reasons under S.256 for questioning the accused forthwith after the framing of the charge as to whether he wished to cross-examine the prosecution is not in itself an irregularity which vitiates the trial and can be cured under the provisions of S.537; 26 A.I.R.1939 Pat 172, 34 A.I.R.1947 Pat.157, 17 A.I.R.1930 Bom. 241, 14 A.I.R. 1927 All. 217 and 13 A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 155 Foll; 12 A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 339 and 14 A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 78; Not Foll; 13 A.I.R. 1926 Pat.214 Disting.
16.In the decision in G.L.Biswas and others - A.I.R. (37) 1950 Patna 550 (C.N.146), it is held as follows:
"Reading the relevant sections of Chapters XVIII and XXI in juxtaposition it is clear that S.252 does not give the accused a statutory right of cross- examination before charge, which in practice he is given; whereas S.208(2) expressly gives an absolute right to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution before the charge and the Magistrate has no power to refuse to the accused the right of cross-examination if the latter insists on his right to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. Section 256 gives a statutory right to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution after the charge is framed. There is no corresponding right in the accused if the enquiry is under Ch.XVIII."
17.Coming to the plea that the Respondents/Accused were not provided with opportunity to cross examine P.Ws.1 to 3, who were already examined by the Prosecution on a subsequent date (before framing charge) and that the same is an illegality in the eye of law, it is to be noted that in the instant case, the framing of necessary charges against the Respondent/Accused on the same day after the examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not a fatal one and although in this regard as per 246(4) of Cr.P.C., the ingredients thereto were not followed by the Trial Court. Yet in the considered opinion of this Court, it had not caused prejudiced to the Respondents 1 and 2 and depriving the opportunity to cross examine P.Ws.1 to 3 on the same day prior to the framing of the charge is not an illegal in the eye of law, which will vitiate the entire trial of the case, as per decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Dhandapani Mudaliar - 1992 Cri.L.J.24 at special page 26. To put it differently, the omission to record reasons for compelling/requiring the Accused to state immediately after framing of the charge, whether they desire to cross examine the prosecution witnesses does not render the trial per se illegal as it had not caused any harm or prejudice to the Respondents/Accused as opined by this Court.
18.At this juncture, this Court makes an useful reference to Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, which enjoins as under:
3.Requirement of the Section:- The essential requirements of Section 3 are that (i) the property in question should be railway property;
(ii) it should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained; and
(iii) it should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.
19.It is to be noted that in respect of an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the Prosecution is to prove that (1) the Accused has been in possession of the Railway Property, (2) the Property is seized from the Accused is Railway Property and (3) the Said Railway Property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen from unlawfully obtained. As such, the three basic ingredients constituted the essence of offence against the Accused. Ordinarily, if the First two ingredients are proved, the burden shifts on the Accused to establish that the Railway property had come into their possession legally/lawfully.
20.Just because the witness belongs to the Railway Protection Force, that itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence out of the zone of consideration. In fact, his evidence is to be scrutinized, analysed and applied to the cases in the determination of the guilt or otherwise of the Accused as any other witnesses.
21.The onus of proving the offence in a criminal case rests on the prosecution. It is not proper to render a finding of guilt in respect of the Accused merely because, he failed to produce any witness in defence. As a matter of fact, the Accused may also offer a reasonable explanation of his possession of the properties belonging to the Railway. If an Accused offers a plausible explanation, then, he has to be let off from the charges levelled against him.
22.At this stage, this Court makes a pertinent reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 for fuller and proper appreciation of the merits of the matter.
23.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 23.06.1997, at about 4'O clock in the dawn, he along with his co-employees viz., Sub Inspector of Police Sreedhar and Sub Inspector of Police Jeyapandian, Constable Karthikeyan attached to Ponmalai Workshop and others with the assistance of Sniffer Dog, on getting information that Copper Wires belonging to the Railways have been stolen and while doing intelligence surveillance duty, they stopped the First Accused Arul, who has been coming from North to South direction with the white plastic bag in his right hand in a suspicious manner and enquired with him as to the article in his possession in the bag and for that A1 has not given a proper explanation and on that point of time in the absence of independent witnesses, P.W.1 searched the said white bag in front of his colleagues, who remained as witnesses and found 1-3/4 kilogram of copper wires and again when he enquired with the First Accused, he has not given proper explanation and prepared Ex.P1 mahazer for seizing the said property and also recorded the confession Ex.P2 given by the First Accused in the presence of witnesses Sub Inspector of Police Sreedhar and Sub Inspector of Police Jeyapandian. In his confession, the First Accused has stated that he has cut the copper wire after removing the same from the post and has hidden the same near the railway outer signal post No.6, where the thorny bush has remained and also he has sold the said copper wire in the shop viz., Mohan Metal Mart, Tanjore Road and balance copper wires have been hidden by him in the aforesaid place and also further stated that he will identify the shop and also point out the place, where the copper wire has been hidden by him and later, he arrested the accused at about 5.45 a.m. in the morning.
24.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the First Accused has identified the Second Accused, with whom the stolen railway articles viz., the copper wire has been sold and from the Second Accused, he seized four copper scroll weighing 2 kilograms, 1.75 kilograms, 1.5 kilogram and 1.05 kilogram in all weighing about 6-3/4 kilogram and prepared Ex.P5 Search List and also recorded the Confessional Statement Ex.P6, furnished by the Second Accused in the presence of witness V.Ramadoss, who signed in M.O.4 and also arrested the Second Accused at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning and later examined the witnesses V.Ramadoss and V.Ganesh Kanna and recorded their statement Exs.P7 and 8 and through Special Report, he handedover the case property and other documents and his Special Report is Ex.P9 and also given a Statement Ex.P10 before the Inspector Dhayalan, who has taken up further investigation from him.
25.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he registered a case in Crime No.6 of 1997 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and sent the First and Second Accused along with the case property and material objects to the Court and also sent the case property for obtaining Expert opinion and Ex.P11 is the Certificate given by the Expert and Expert's statement Ex.P12 has been recorded by the Sub Inspector Prabhu and the missing report has been obtained from witness Thiyagarajan by the Sub Inspector of Police and the Missing Report has been marked as Ex.P13 and also on 24.07.1997, he obtained a Stamping Verification Report from one Balakrishnan, Stamping Inspector, Tiruchirappalli and Letter in this regard is Ex.P14 and also examined Inspector Rajadurai on 09.09.1997 and obtained a statement, which is Ex.P10 and he also examined Sub Inspector of Police Sreedhar on the same day and obtained his statement Ex.P15 and also examined the Deputy Sub Inspector on 12.09.1997 and obtained his statement Ex.P16 and got the certificate from T.M.Akbar Basha, Village Administrative Officer on 13.09.1997 and that Certificate is Ex.P17 and after completing the enquiry, he prepared a Complaint/Petition against the First Accused Arul for the offence under Section 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession). Further he obtained slip proceedings Ex.P.18, to show that in C.C.No.1189 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, wherein the First Accused has already been punished by the Judicial Magistrate No.2 and as against the Second Accused, he filed the Complaint for the offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, before the Court.
26.P.W.3 (in his cross examination) has stated that when he investigated the case properties, he found that those properties have been kept in the polythene bag and the polythene bag has remained open and has not been sealed and he does not know the year in which the case properties have been manufactured.
27.P.W.4, in his evidence has stated that the First Accused has been intercepted on 23.06.1997 at 4'O Clock in the morning by P.W.1 and in their presence, when P.W.1 had examined polythene bag, A1 has been keeping 1-3/4 kilogram of copper wire scroll for which he has not in possession of either receipt or proper documents and the copper wires belonging to Railways have been in possession of the First Accused and bonafide suspicion, P.W.1 has seized the same from the First Accused as per Ex.P1 mahazer and the polythene bag is M.O.3 and from the bag M.O.1, copper wire weighing 1-3/4 kilogram has been found and the First Accused has given a confession, which has been recorded in his presence in which, he has signed and Ex.P2 is the confession given by the First Accused. Also, the First Accused in his confession has stated that he will identify the place, where he has sold the portion of the copper wire and also the place, where he has hidden the copper wires and also the place from which he cut the copper wire and accordingly, A1 has identified the place viz., signal post No.6 situated on the Western side of Ponmalai, Trichy Junction Railway Line opposite to G-Corner and to the North of said place at a distance of 50 feet, the thorny bush place has been identified, where 2-1/2 kilogram of Railway copper wire has been hidden, which has been seized through Ex.P3 Observation Mahazer and M.O.2 is the seized copper wire weighing 2-1/2 kilogram.
28.P.Ws.5 and 6 have turned hostile and hence, their evidence are not useful to support the case of the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court.
29.P.W.7 Sub Inspector Prabhu, in his evidence has deposed that on 11.07.1997 under the instructions of Inspector, Junior Engineer Thiyagarajan of Telephone Communication Department, Southern Railway has come to their Station and examined the copper wires in connection with the case and in the first bag, the copper wire scroll weighing 1-1/4 kilogram and another copper wire scroll weighing 2-1/2 kilogram have been found and in another polythene bag, four copper wire scrolls weighing 2 kilogram, 1.700 kilogram, 1.500 kilogram and 1.050 kilogram have been found and those properties have been certified to be one belonging to the Railways as per Ex.P11 Certificate and he recorded the statement of Thiyagarajan, Ex.P12.
30.P.W.8, T.M.Akbar Basha, Village Administrative Officer, in his evidence has deposed that on 13.09.1997 as per the letter of Inspector Railway Protection Force, Tiruchy Junction, he has gone to the shop and made enquiry and furnished Ex.P17 Certificate to the effect that Mohan Mettal Mart at his stated address belongs to Mohan son of Balaiah Nadar.
31.Although on the side of Prosecution/ Appellant/State, P.Ws.1 to 8 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to 23 and M.Os.1 to 4 have been marked, yet the same are not supporting the case of Prosecution or heightening the case of Prosecution in proving the charge levelled against the respective Accused 1 and 2, as opined by this Court.
32.As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellant/State in its Complaint filed under Section 190(i)(a) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 has specified the date and time of occurrence as "on 23.6.'97 at about 04.00 Hrs. and searched in between 07.00 Hrs. and 08.00 Hrs". A perusal of the Missing Report Ex.P.13 dated 20.06.97 shows that the theft report in connection with missing of copper in Railway control alignment in between GOC - TPJ Section is on 20.6.97 at 2.30 Hrs. The evidence of P.W.3 (in chief examination) is to the effect that on 26.6.97 in between TPJ-Ponmalai, the communication wire for the Railway movement upto kilometer 402 5A - 7 was missing and in this regard, he gave a complaint to the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli, who came and inspected the spot and subsequently, he was called to the Railway Protection Force Office on 11.07.1997 etc.
33.It is the evidence of P.W.3 (in cross examination) that the missing report was given on 20.06.97 in regard to the present case and he has further stated that in the list of documents connected with the case, in Serial No.15 in the missing report, the date was mentioned as 23.6.97. At this juncture, this Court perused the list of documents mentioned in the complaint dated 14.10.1997 of Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirappalli Junction and to the naked eye, it is visibly clear that in Serial No.15 in missing report, the dated mentioned as 23.06.97 was scored out in ink and also in Sl.No.24, it was mentioned in writing in blue ink that "original missing report dated as 23.6.97 and overwritten as 20.6.97". In fact, the figure '3' was overwritten as '0' and the original missing report was mentioned as dated 20.06.97. The evidence of P.W.3 (in chief examination) that the communication wire found missing on 26.06.97 is suicidal to the facts of the Appellant/Prosecution case. In the complaint, it is categorically mentioned that the date of occurrence is as 23.6.97 at about 04.00 Hrs. and searched in between 07.00 Hrs and 08.00 Hrs. Therefore, a genuine and a reasonable duty occurs as to the exact date of missing of the copper wire in question.
34.In Criminal case, the genesis of the prosecution ought to be a clear cut and unambiguous one. But, in the instant case on hand, the discrepancy in regard to the date of missing copper wire whether it was on 20.6.97 or on 23.6.97 or on 26.6.97 is not a trivial or trifling contradiction.
35.Per contra, it goes to the root of the prosecution case and in this regard, this Court opines that the Appellant/Prosecution has not cleared the mist, shroud or cloud surrounding the exact date of missing of the Copper Wire. Moreover, the categorical evidence of P.W.3 (in chief examination) was that the communication wire belonging to the Railways was missing on 26.6.97, which is contrary to Ex.P13 Missing Report, wherein, the date of missing Copper wire was mentioned as 20.06.97 at 2.30 hours. Suffice it for this Court to point out that there is a genuine reasonable doubt as to the exact date on which the Railway Copper Wire was found missing. In view of the material and serious contradiction in regard to the alleged date of missing of the Copper wire as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant/Prosecution had not come out with the clear case and as such, this Court holds that the First Appellate Court is right in disbelieving the story of the Appellant/Prosecution and logically, acquitted the Respondents/Accused giving them the benefit out doubt. Indeed, the First Appellate Court had rendered a crystal clear finding that the Appellant/Prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
36.At this juncture, this Court recalls the following decisions:
(a) In Re.B.Mohan Petitioner reported in 1987 CRI.L.J.1390, it is observed as under:
"Once a person has been found in possession of railway property reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained, the burden shifts on him to show that he came into possession lawfully. Therefore, the whole investigation and the whole trial are based on the special provisions of the Act. But, for these exorbitant provisions to come into play, the prosecution has necessarily to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the property in possession of the accused is railway property. Where the telephone copper wire belonging to the Railways was cut and stolen and two days after a bundle of copper wire was recovered from the scrap iron shop of the accused who claimed that he had purchased the wire, it would be dangerous to base conviction of the accused on the fact that because the date of disappearance of the railway wire and the date of purchase by the accused happened to be the same and therefore the wire found in possession of the accused was the same as the one stolen from the Railways.
(b) In the decision in Abdul Rashid V. State of U.P. - 1991, CRI.L.J.3065, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the fact of recovery of alleged articles from verandah and adjoining land of house of accused is not conclusive proof of his possession over them and that the prosecution must prove that recovered articles were in use and in possession of the Accused.
37.In support of the contention that it is not necessary that there should be a report of theft of Railway Property, the Learned Government Advocate (criminal side) cites the decision in The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) V. Shaik Galib and others - 1975 CRI.L.J.952, wherein, it is laid down as follows:
"It is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen. Once it is established that it is the railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show how he came into lawful possession of the same.
The fact that no report of theft was made from the railway yard is not a ground for holding that the accused came into possession of the property by lawful means."
38.Be that as it may, on an overall assessment of the present facts and circumstances of the case in a cumulative fashion, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Appellant/Prosecution/State had not proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt in respect of offences under Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, insofar as the Respondents/Accused are concerned and as such, this Court is in complete agreement with a view taken by the First Appellate Court in C.A.No.105 of 2004, acquitting the Respondents/Accused and therefore, the present Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellant/State fails.
39.In view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution and after a lapse of nearly 15 years, there is no reason for this Court at this stage to disturb the finding and the judgment of Acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court and moreso, the judgment of Acquittal in C.A.No.105 of 2004 dated 11.04.2005 in respect of the Respondents/Accused is a proper and valid one in the eye of law.
40.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of Acquittal passed in C.A.No.105 of 2004 dated 11.04.2005 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal.
Arul To
1.The Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Tiruchirapalli Junction R.P.F. Post,
2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Trichirappalli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.