Madras High Court
State By Public Prosecutor vs Mathialagan on 24 December, 2003
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24/12/2003
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
C.A.No.935 of 1995
State by Public Prosecutor
Madras. ..Appellant.
-Vs-
1. Mathialagan
2. Rajamani
3. Selvaraj
4. Mani
5. Panneer Selvam
6. Krishnasamy
7. Rajamani
8. Mani @ Paramasivam
9. Member Kanagaraj
10. Jeyaraj @ Kanagaraj
11. Sarkunam
12. Bagavathi
13. Ramaraj
14. Muthusamy
15. Kukkul Vetti @ Kanagaraj
16. Neethi Raj
17. Sarkunam
18. Kodangi Patti Perumal @ Tailor Perumal
19. Military Perumal
20. Selvam
21. Raja
22. Perumal
23. Samiyar Sivanandi
24. Karnan
25. Singam @ Singaperumal
26. Montha @ Nalla Karuppa Thevar
27. Kaluva Thevar
28. Murugan
29. Subramani
30. Srinivasan
31. Sekar ..Respondents.
Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28
.2.1994 in S.C.NO.90/91 of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.
!For Appellant : Mr. I. Subramaniam
Public Prosecutor
^For Respondents : Mr. K.V. Sridharan
:J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. THANIKACHALAM,J.) The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused/respondents in S.C.No.90/91, on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has preferred this appeal, questioning the correctness of the trial Court's verdict, praying for appropriate punishment against the accused, as per the offences made out, as established by the evidence.
2. The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, had filed a charge sheet, before the trial Court, seeking appropriate punishment against some of the accused under Sections 147, 148, 436, 302, 307, 323, 324 and 325 I.P.C. directly and against some of the accused under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324 and 325 r/w 149 I.P.C., contending, that all the accused, taking advantage of the communal clash between SC/ST people, as well as the Caste Hindu, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 18.9.1989 at about 10.00 a.m. at Ammapatty Village, with the common intention of committing riot, then in furtherance of the same, they have torched the houses of the harijan people, assaulted many persons, including some of the witnesses, causing simple injuries also, committed murder of Chinnathambi, Easwaran and Seeniammal, by indiscriminately attacking them, thereby causing fatal injuries, then burning and therefore, all the accused/respondents, should be dealt with accordingly.
3. After the committal of the case, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, took the case for trial. As mandated by Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge satisfying himself, framed charges against A6, A8 to A19, A21 and A23 to A31 under Sections 147 I.P.C.; against A1, A2, A1 5 and A25 under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., against A4, A6, A9, A15 and A25 under Section 302 r/w 149; against 5th accused under Section 3 02 I.P.C., against A14, A23 and A25 under Section 436 I.P.C., against A6 and A22 under Section 307 I.P.C., against A3, A6, A7 and A20 under Section 323 as well as 324 I.P.C., against A31 under Section 325 I.P.C., against A8, A11 to A13, A16 to A19, A21, A24, A26, A28 to A30 under Section 323 I.P.C. The trial Court, framing charges as above, explaining the circumstances, when questioned the accused to plead guilty, they refused to plead guilty, denying their involvement also, in the alleged incident.
4. The prosecution, in order to make out a case, as per the final report, as well as to establish the charges framed, marched in 19 witnesses, armed with 39 documents, as well as 12 material objects. On behalf of the accused, aid is sought from Exs.D1 to D4, to nullify the prosecution evidence, or at least to cast cloud over the same, thereby to create a doubt, then have an escape way.
5. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, scanning the materials placed before him, weighed the same in proper perspective, which failed to make out any offences, against any one of the accused, and the result is the acquittal of all.
6. In the incident narrated in the final report, as disclosed by the materials and as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, three persons died, 11 persons or so injured, and many houses were also burnt to ashes. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of all the accused, considering the sensitiveness of the case, seriousness of the offences, as well as the victims in this case, who belonged to the Schedule Caste, has challenged the acquittal, on various grounds.
7. The prosecution case in brief:
(a) Thiru Murugan (P.W.1), Podhumani (P.W.9) and one Easwaran are the sons of Paraman (P.W.2). P.W.3 by name Santhanamary is the wife of one Chinnathambi, the senior paternal uncle of P.W.1. i.e. the brother of P.W.2.
All the above said persons are the residents of Ammapatty Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 are also the residents of the same village. P.W.7 is the father of P.W.5. Vellathai (P.W.8) is the wife of Chinnathambi. P.W.8 and one Seeniammal, aunt of P.W.1 i.e. the sister of P.W.2, are also the residents of the same village. All of them belong to Adi Dravida Community. The accused also belong to the same village, but they are different community people.
(b) In the year 1989, elsewhere in the month of August or September, there was a communal clash between the Adi Dravida Community people and other so called caste Hindus. On 17.8.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. or so, P.W.2 went to the Tea Shop of one M r taking tea. When P.W.2 was taking tea, seated in a bench, Selvaraj (A3) who came there, questioned the conduct of P.W.2 in taking tea, seated in a bench, while the caste Hindu was coming. The said Selvaraj assaulted P.W.2, which was informed by him, later to his son Easwaran. Thereafter, P.W.1 , P.W.2 and Easwaran questioned the conduct of Selvaraj, which was retaliated, not only by the said Selvaraj, but also by more than thirty persons or so, causing damages to the houses, for which Chinnathambi brother of P.W.2, preferred a complaint to the police. On the basis of the complaint given by Chinnathambi, the Police also enquired, thereby causing strained relationship between the prosecution witnesses and the accused.
(c) On 18.8.1989, Saral, wife of Easwaran went to fetch water, from the common pipe, where one Rajalakshmi wife of A7 also came. The said Rajalakshmi, considering the caste of Saral, appears to have prevented her from taking water, throwing the pot also, for which Easwaran preferred a complaint, before the police, who deals the case relating to protection of civil rights. On the basis of the complaint given by Easwaran also, an enquiry was started, which caused irritation to caste Hindus, resulting road roko on 17.9.1989.
(d) On 18.9.1989 at about 10.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was in his house, A1, A3, A5, A7, A8, A11, A12 along with 10 or 15 persons, armed with deadly weapons, approached the house of P.W.1, attempted to attack him and his relatives. On seeing the aggressive nature of the accused and others, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8 went inside their house; and locked. The accused, who were armed with deadly weapons, such as crowbar, etc., broke open the door, set fire to some of the houses also, thereby compelling Chinnathambi, Vellathayi, P.W.1 and Easwaran to come out from the houses. On seeing Chinnathambi and Easwaran, as well as P.W.1, A1 and A7 attacked Chinnathambi and Easwaran with Aruval, causing head injuries. A4, A9, A12 and A13 attacked P.W.1 and caused bleeding injuries, in addition A1, A2 and A6 also attacked P.W.1, P.W.2 and other persons. Apprehending further danger, P.W.1 ran away from the scene of crime. In the said incident, P.Ws.1 to 6 as well as A6 and A22 sustained injuries. The accused have also set fire to the houses, resulting the death of Chinnathambi, Easwaran and one Seeniammal. The above incident was witnessed not only by the injured persons, but also by other witnesses.
(e) P.W.1 being the victim of the incident went to the police station, preferred a complaint to the Inspector of Police, P.W.19, on 18.9.1989 at about 11.20 a.m., which was reduced into writing, as Ex.P1. On the basis of Ex.P.1, P.W.19 registered a case under Sections 147, 1 48, 324, 307, 302 and 436 I.P.C. in Cr.No.510/89 and the printed F.I.R. is Ex.P.29, which reached the court, as an express F.I.R. P.W.19 made arrangements to send the injured persons, to the hospital for medical aid. Thereafter, he commenced the investigation at about 11.50 a.m. on the same day, rushed to the scene of crime at about 12.10 p.m. There, A22 preferred Ex.P.30 complaint and on that basis, later a case was registered in Cr.No.511/89 under Sections 324 I.P.C., for which the first information report, Ex.P.31 was sent to the court concerned. This case was also taken for investigation along with the above said case, since connected.
(f) In the presence of Anthony Raj and Jayakumar, P.W.19, inspected the scene of crime, prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar, as well as sketch Ex.P.32, at about 1.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.19 conducted inquest over the body of Chinnathambi, in the presence of Panchayatdars and the result is Ex.P.33. Recording the statements of P.W.3, 9 and other witnesses, the Investigating Officer made an arrangement, for conducting postmortem of the body of Chinnathambi, giving the requisition Ex.P.5 through P.W.16.
(g) On the same day, at about 3.00 p.m., he conducted inquest over the body of Easwaran, and prepared Ex.P.34. Then recording the statements of the eye witnesses and other witnesses, through P.W.17, he sent the body of Easwaran, for postmortem. He had also recovered the blood stained earth and other material objects viz., M.Os.2 to 11, in the presence of the witnesses under Ex.P.3.
(h) At about 5.40 p.m., hearing the news of death of Seeniammal, in continuation of investigation, P.W.19 went to Uthamapalayam hospital, conducted an inquest, between 6.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and the result is Ex.P.35. He has also examined the injured witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 2 & 3. Thereafter, giving the requisition Ex.P.9, he made an arrangement, for the autopsy of the body of Seeniammal, through P.W.19.
(i) Dr. Karunakaran, P.W.13, on receipt of Ex.P.5 and on identification of the body of Chinnathambi, conducted an autopsy which revealed the following external injuries and some internal injuries.
External injuries:
1. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the left forehead at the level the left eyebrow
2. A lacerated wound vertically placed on the middle of forehead close to the medial end of left, eyebrow 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.
3. A lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the middle at scalp
4. A lacerated wound 4 cm above the right ear-obliquely placed 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.
5. Lacerated wound on the Right, side of lower part of occiput 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep.
6. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the upper part of occiput on the left side.
Considering the effect of the above said injuries, he issued Ex.P.6, postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple head injuries.
(j) On the same day, on receipt of the requisition Ex.P.7, and on identification of the body of Easwaran by the police, autopsy was conducted upon his body, which revealed the following injuries, which are incorporated in Ex.P8. According to the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, Easwaran also died, due to shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple head injuries.
External Injuries:
1. A lacerated wound 7 cm x 8 cms x bone depth over the middle of head
2. A lacerated wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone depth over the lower part of occiput - transversely placed.
3. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm x bone depth on the right parietal area.
4. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 3cm x bone depth on the upper part of occipital area - transversely placed.
(k) Dr. Ramachandran, on receipt of Ex.P.9 and on identification of the body of Seeniammal, conducted autopsy on 18.9.1989 at about 7.45 p.m., which disclosed the following injuries.
External Injuries:
1. Sutured wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm on left side of forehead.
2. Charred skin 3 x 3 cm in front of left leg. Eyes closed. Tongue in oral cavity.
3. Swelling on the left side of the chest extending from left clavicle to abdomen and on the back of the chest on left side to the midline.
4. Moderate swelling 8 x 8 cm on back and front on right side of the chest.
He opined in Ex.P.10, that the death would have occurred to Seeniammal, due to respiratory arrest due to surgical emphysema
(l) P.Ws.1 to 7, Podhumani (P.W.9), Devika (P.W.10) and Sanguvellai (P.W.11) have been sent for medical examination, since they have sustained injuries in the incident and the doctor P.W.14, who examined them had issued wound certificates or accident registers, as the case may be incorporating the injuries sustained by the above said persons under Exs.P.11, P.12, P.15, P.13, P.16, P.18, P.20, P.14, P.19 and P.17 respectively. In the same incident, A22 and A6 have also sustained injuries, for which they were subjected to medical examination, and the same doctor giving treatment, issued wound certificate Exs.P.21 and 22 respectively.
(m) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.19 examined the witnesses P.Ws.4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 and recorded their statements then and there. On 27.9.1989, he arrested the 6th accused at about 10.30 a.m. at Madurai Hospital. On 4.10.1989 at about 4.30 p.m., he arrested A3, A4, A5, A7, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A20, & A25. Apprehending arrest, in the hands of the police, the second accused obtained anticipatory bail. On 16.10.1989 at about 1.15 p.m., P.W.19 arrested A8, A9 and A21 on their surrender before him, in the station. At the request made by the investigating officer under Exs.P.23 and P.25, some of the material objects recovered during the course of investigation, have been sent for chemical examination, through court. Thereafter, P.W.19 was transferred and one Pratap Singh (Inspector of Police) continued the investigation. He had arrested A16, A18, A19 and A26 on 16 .11.1989 on their surrender and sent them for remand. On 20.9.1989, the Inspector of Police arrested A1, 23, 24 at about 3.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.2 and John Bosco. On enquiry, the first accused volunteered to give a confession statement Ex.P.36, on which basis M.O.1 was recovered, under Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.12 and other witnesses, in addition to the recovery of M.O.12 under Ex.P.4. On 22.9.198 9, the Inspector arrested A17 and A27 to A31 and apprehended A22 on 23.1.1990 at about 8.30 p.m.
(n) The investigation so conducted, in both the crime revealed that the case registered in Cr.No.511/89 was a mistake of fact and therefore, that case was referred under Ex.P.37. Since the recording of statements from the witnesses, preparation of documents, and recovery of material objects, revealed that offences were made out against the accused persons, the investigating officer had filed a final report, leading to trial, ending in acquittal, which is under challenge before us.
8. The learned trial Judge, while assessing the materials, came to the conclusion, that the complaint which moved the wheels of investigation itself is doubtful, since it is not proved that P.W.1 alone had given the complaint. He has further held, that the prosecution has failed to prove the previous incidents, which are claimed as the basis or the motive, for the incident said to have taken place on 18.9.198 9 at about 10.00 a.m. This view was taken by the trial Court, because though it is said, to prove the previous incident, documents are available, were not produced for scanning and in this view, adverse inference also appears to have been taken. It is the further conclusion of the learned trial Judge, that the genesis of the case itself is suppressed by the prosecution, since as disclosed by the evidence, some complaint(s) given by the victims, even before the alleged Ex.P.1, have been suppressed intentionally, probably those documents do not contain the names of the accused and therefore, later on Ex.P.1 complaint ought to have been prepared, with much deliberation, including the accused wantonly, taking advantage of the communal clash, between the two sects. The trial Judge has also noticed, much unexplained contradictions and irreconcilable omissions, not accounted for, thereby naturally creating a doubt about the prosecution case and in this view, he emboldened to give the benefits of doubt to the accused, which resulted in acquittal.
9. The further conclusion of the learned trial Judge is that his attempt to separate the grain from the chaff i.e the truth from the falsity, was an impossible task, since the grain could not be separated from the chaff, because of the fact that they are inextricably mixed up and if any attempt is to be made, a new case for the prosecution, has to be constructed as held by the Apex Court. It is the further conclusion of the learned trial Judge, that the medical evidence is also not in conformity with the oral evidence, in addition to the absence of unassailable evidence, to prove the recovery of material objects, etc. After the houses were burnt either by the accused or by somebody, fire extinguishing squad came to the village, extinguished the fire and after some preliminary enquiry, they had submitted a report. Admittedly that report was not filed, therefore, the trial Court has also taken the view, that by suppressing those material document, the real case is screened, projecting some false case and in this view, accepting the case of prosecution as such, is not possible, though in a communal clash or otherwise, three persons were dead, more than 1 1 or so sustained injuries, whether it is simple or grievous, as the case may be. On the above grounds, with supporting materials, that too, available from the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has rendered a judgment, refusing to convict any one of the accused or in other words acquitted all, giving the benefits of doubt, which is under challenge.
10. Heard Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Counsel Mr. K.V. Sridharan for the accused/ respondents.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted, that the trial Court has not assessed the evidence in its proper perspective, thereby erred, in coming to an incorrect conclusion against the evidence. It is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, that the trial Court has committed an error by comparing the signature of P.W.1 and P.W.19 on its own, without the support of the expert's opinion and the conclusion based upon the personal opinion, cannot have the legal sanction, in view of the Apex Court's ruling, which should follow, the doubt entertained by the learned trial Judge, as if P.W.1 had not preferred Ex.P.1 or P.W.19 had not written the same is unwarranted. It is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the injuries sustained by two accused were well explained, for that adverse inference could not have been drawn. The observation of the trial Court, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, that the accused have not been properly identified, is unwarranted in this case, because of the fact they are known to the prosecution witnesses, since they are residing nearby. On the above lines, elaborating the same, supported by some materials, the main thrust of the appellant, in short, is that the trial Court's judgment is perverse in nature, requiring interference by this Court, to meet the ends of justice, thereby to render justice to the affected parties.
12. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents opposing the above submissions, has submitted, that the trial Court has very elaborately, based on unassailable materials, had reached an irresistible conclusion, that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges framed against the accused, which is also well supported by legal principles and in this view, he further submitted, interference of this Court is unwarranted, whereas the findings of the trial Court requires total confirmation.
13. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 185, the Apex Court of this land, has ruled that in a case of appeal against acquittal, interference of the High Court is warranted, if the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable more or less perverse in nature, not considering the materials in its proper perspective, basing its conclusion on surmises and conjectures.
14. In Dwarka Doss vs. State of Haryana (2003 SCC Crl 264), the appellate Court, while discussing the power of the High Court in a case of an appeal against acquittal, held when two views are reasonably possible, one supporting acquittal, while the other indicating conviction of the accused, High Court would not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal. In this view, it is held as follows:
"While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial Court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the t rial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.
15. In Kanshi Ram vs. State of M.P., (2002 SCC (Cri) 68) the Apex Court has considered the procedure to be followed by the High Court or the points to be considered in an appeal against acquittal, wherein it is ruled:
"Though the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at variance with those recorded by the trial Court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is - if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court its view would have been one of recording a conviction."
16. Having the above principles in mind, we have to see whether the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not possible, under the facts and circumstances of the case or we have to find out whether the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous, based on an improper appreciation of the evidence.
17. The magnitude of the offences, reported in the case is somewhat alarming, that does not mean, the persons who are arrayed should be convicted, totally, accepting the case of the prosecution, if the materials placed before the court, failed to satisfy the consciousness of the court. It is an admitted position, that three persons died or murdered, more than 11 or so injured and many dwelling houses were torched, making them to ashes. During the relevant period, as submitted before us, and as seen from the evidence also, there was a communal clash between Adi Dravida and other communities in this area. In the said communal clash, many died, many injured and in order to sort out the differences between the parties, and to pay the just compensation to the victims, Justice Bashakara Commission was appointed and the said commission has also filed a report. It is also an admitted position, as submitted before us, on the basis of the said report, compensation were paid to the victims and their kith and kin, including the persons, who suffered in this incident. If we view the case from this angle, there would be a basic doubt, whether this incident had arisen due to the communal clash or between the victim party and the accused party, on the basis of some individual disputes.
18. The attempt on behalf of the prosecution in this case is, that there was some independent dispute between these two groups, and its result is the incident, culminating into the murder of three persons, causing injuries to so many people. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive or the enmity alleged in the final report, between the two groups, though motive alone may not be a criterion, to convict the accused, if one had committed any offence, punishable under law.
19. It is the case of the accused, that there is no enmity with the prosecution witnesses and the police, taking advantage of the communal clash, in which the accused are not connected, in which some of the prosecution witnesses have sustained injuries, falsely foisted the case against them. To test the veracity of the prosecution case, in view of the specific defence, motive takes a prominent role, not from the side of the prosecution, but from the side of the defence. Here, specific motives have been alleged and therefore, we are constrained to scan the same, to test, whether those thing s are true or not, then only, considering the interestedness of the prosecution witnesses, we can fix the culpability of the accused also if any, depending upon their previous act, in addition to the acts committed by them on the date of the incident, viz., 18.9.1989.
20. It is the positive case of the prosecution, that on 17.8.1989 at about 3.00 p.m., there was some dispute between P.W.2 and the accused Selvaraj (A3), resulting a complaint also to the police station. P.W.2, the alleged victim of the incident dated 17.8.1989, would state that when he went to one Muthu Tea Shop at about 3.00 p.m., some four years prior to the incident, to take tea, one Karunakkan son of Urukumagan scolded him stating "vd;dlh gw ehap eP bg"rpy; cl;fhh;e;J O Fof;fpwha; vd;W nfl;lhh;.... vd;dlh gwehap vjph;j;J nfl;fpwha; vd;W nrhy;yp tpwF fl;ilia vLj;J vd;Dila tyJ ifapy; moj;jhh;/@ He further says, he informed this matter to his eldest son Easwaran, and thereafter, both of them went to tea shop and his son Easwaran questioned the conduct of the said person, for that he beat Easwaran also. Though P. W.2 failed to mention the presence of P.W.1, later on would say, that all the three returned to the house. He further says, that thereafter one Sargunam (A11) and 30 others came to their house, pelted stones, using filthy language, caused damages to the houses also. He has stated further, for this Vandalism committed by the accused party, Chinnathambi preferred a complaint to the police.
21. The third incident preceding the incident on 18.9.1989 is the dispute between the women folk. P.W.2 would state that the wife of Easwaran went to a common tap for fetching water and at that time, the wife of Rajamani A2 came there, scolded Saral, using her caste name. According to P.W.2, for this incident also, a complaint was given followed by an enquiry. This is the case of P.W.1 also, to certain extent, though we find some discrepancies in their evidence. The above narrated incidents were the causes, for the incident, which took place on 18.9.1989. It is not the case of the prosecution, that for the above said incidents, no materials are available, and it all stood in the stage of oral complaint or oral enquiry. Therefore, to prove the motive, when documents are available, that too of unassailable nature, the prosecution ought to have produced the same, and for non production of the said materials, certainly, the Court is entitled to draw an inference, as rightly did by the learned trial judge.
22. The learned Sessions Judge had elaborately considered the motive part in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of his judgment, assigning unassailable reasons, which could not be labeled, at any stretch of imagination, as unwarranted findings or improper appreciation of the evidence, so as to say, even at the first instance, it should come within the meaning of perverse judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor also unable to satisfy our consciousness, how the trial Court had committed an error or how the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence, thereby landing in an incorrect conclusion. In this view, we are also satisfied to confirm the said findings in paragraph-28 of the judgment of the trial Court.
23. Ex.P.1 is the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1, to P. W.19 on 18.9.1989 at about 11.20 a.m. Ex.P.29 is the printed FIR said to have been prepared, on the same day and at the same time, on the basis of Ex.P.1. As seen from the endorsement of the Magistrate in both the documents, it seems, they had reached the hands of the Judicial Magistrate on 18.9.1989, at about 6.00 p.m. According to the prosecution, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, these two documents are genuine in nature, which depicted the incident, in detail and no doubt could be entertained, as incorrectly did by the trial Court.
24. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is, that Exs.P1 and P.29 are the documents, prepared not at the time mentioned therein, but, later on, suppressing the original first information given to the police; probably to suit their convenience, wantonly including the names of the accused, after deliberation. According to the learned counsel for the accused, because of the deliberation and discussion, the delay had been caused and in this view, both the documents should be held, as concocted one and the case said to have been investigated & built, on the basis of the false information furnished in Ex.P.1, also should be viewed doubtfully, and in this view he pleads the benefits of doubt also. Considering the indisputable materials available on record to buttress the above view, we are unable to say 'no' to the above contention of the learned counsel for the accused, saying 'yes' to the learned Public Prosecutor.
25. As per the final report, the incident had taken place on 18.9.19 89 at about 10.00 a.m. at Adi Dravida Street, U. Ammapatty Village. The distance between U. Ammapatty Village and the police station is only 5 km or so. For the incident said to have taken place at 10.00 a.m., as per the endorsement in Ex.P.1, at 11.20 a.m. the complaint was preferred. Therefore, this time consumption of 1.20 hours could have no significance. But Ex.P.1 and the printed FIR Ex.P.29 had reached the Magistrate Court, only at about 6.00 p.m. and in this view, there is a delay of 7 hours or so. If the residence of the Magistrate or the Magistrate Court is away from the police station, in our view, the 7 hours delay could be ignored. As seen from the evidence, the distance between the police station and the Magistrate Court is 10 meters or so, or it could be said the Magistrate Court is very near to the police station, probably within the same compound. The position being so, it is the duty of the prosecution to explain, why an FIR received at 11.20 a.m. and a case registered at the same time, had not reached the Magistrate, within the minimum reasonable time. In other words, the police is duty bound to explain, why it took more than six hours, to reach the hands of the Magistrate, when the Magistrate Court is very near to the police station. As evidenced by Ex.D3, the Magistrate was available in the station, on that day and that is why, he had received the intimation, from the hospital for recording dying declaration of Perumal (A22). In pursuance of D3, the learned Magistrate reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of Perumal, at about 2.30 p.m, as seen from Ex.D4. This would indicate that the Magistrate had the knowledge, indirectly about this incident and that is why he had been to the hospital, at the request of the hospital authorities, to record the dying declaration of A22. Therefore, if Ex.P1 and Ex.P.29 came into existence, at the time mentioned thereunder, then both the documents should have reached the hands of the Judicial Magistrate, in time, but it is not so. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that these two documents were concocted, at later point of time, for the purpose of the case, suppressing the previous FIR, appears to be well founded, and for that also, we are having unimpeachable evidence.
26. The case of the prosecution is that on the information furnished by P.W.1, the Inspector of Police viz., P.W.19 recorded the statement and that is why in Ex.P.1, he has subscribed his signature. P.W.19 claims that he alone recorded the statement of P.W.1, and obtained the signature of P.W.1, in the printed F.I.R. The above facts are challenged, during the cross examination. It is suggested to P.W.19, specifically, that Exs.P.1 and P.29 do not contain his hand writing. In order to ascertain the truth, probably at the request of the counsel or the court suo motu, requested P.W.19 to write the first six lines of Ex.P.1, in the open Court, which he did, as seen from Ex.D2. By comparing the signature of P.W.1, as well as by comparing the hand writing of P.W.19 in both the documents, the trial Court came to the conclusion, that P.W.19 would not have written Exs.P.1 and P.29, and the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 is also doubtful. In this view, the trial Court had come to a conclusion that an indelible doubt had arisen spontaneously whether Ex.P.1 was given by P.W.1 or not, which appears to be well founded, since no earnest attempt has been taken by the prosecution to erase the same.
27. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend, that the labour undertaken by the trial Court, invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act may not be proper, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram (AIR 1997 SC 14). Undoubtedly, the second limb of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act vests power in the Court, to direct a person present in Court to write any words or figures, for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. Exercising this power alone, the trial Court has requested P.W.19, to write the first six lines of Ex.P.1, in order to ascertain, whether he would have written Exs. P.1 and P.29, the FIR, as claimed by him. By comparing Ex.D2 with Exs.P.1 & P.29, the learned trial Judge, has come to the conclusion in paragraph-37 of the judgment, that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.29 would not have come into existence, as stated therein and they must be more or less concocted documents. In State (Delhi Admn) v. Paliram's case, the Apex Court though confirmed the right of the Magistrate, to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature, has held "The matter could be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.
From the above observation of the Apex Court, one thing is clear that the judge is not totally prevented from comparing the signature to reach the just conclusion, regarding the genuineness of the hand writing. If, only on the basis of comparing the signature alone, the court had come to the conclusion that Exs.P.1 and P.29 would not have come into existence, at the time mentioned therein, we can very well accept and set aside the finding of the trial Court, even accepting the oral evidence of P.W.19. But, on facts, the matter is quite different and we are of the firm opinion, on going through the evidence of P.W.19, that he has spoken an unadulterated lie, before the trial Court, justifying his improper action, in not properly conducting the investigation in this case. As an investigating officer, in our opinion, P.W.19 had not performed his duties, whereas he had committed many laches, for which we are not recommending any action. However, on the basis of the above ruling, we are unable to set aside the finding of the trial Court, regarding the spontaneous doubt, entertained by the trial Court, regarding Exs.P.1 and P.29. It is not the case of P.W.1 9 that ExsP.1 and P.29 were written by somebody, on his direction, or under his supervision, which is not prohibited. But he claimed, that he had alone written, both, which we could not accept, in view of the glaring differences, in both the documents viz., Exs.P.1 & P.29 and Ex.D2.
28. P.W.8, Tmt. Vellathai is also one of the injured in the incident, narrated in the final report. P.W.2 would state that all the injured went to the hospital, in a police van for treatment, which is proved to be false by Ex.P.38. Ex.P.38 is the wound certificate issued to P.W.8, by a doctor attached to Government Hospital, Uthamapalayam. It says, P.W.8, was seen by the doctor at 11.50 a.m. P.W.8 went to the doctor with a medical memo dated 18.9.1989, and the memo number is given as 109/ML/R1/89. Thus, it is seen P.W.8 went to the police station, before going to the hospital, for treatment and that is why a memo was issued to the injured. It is an admitted position, that in the incident, three persons died, many injured and many houses were burnt to ashes, thereby disclosing cognizable offences. Certainly P.W.8 would have reported the matter, to the police when she went there and obtained the medical memo. That must be the first information report, for initiating the further proceedings in this case. The police ought to have recorded the statement from P.W.8 and for the reasons best known, it is suppressed, as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. Thus, by suppressing the earlier report, in our considered opinion, Ex.P.1 was prepared, as if it was given by P.W.1, whose signature does not tally with the signatures found in Ex.P.1 and P.29 . By comparing the signatures of Murugan in Exs.P.1 and P.29, we are unable to say empathetically that the person signed must be one and the same and we are persuaded to say, it must be a different person. This fact could be seen easily, even by a naked eye, and no expert opinion is required.
29. As claimed by the prosecution, if Ex.P.1 was recorded on the information furnished by P.W.1, certainly it should contain at least the injuries sustained by him, in detail, as well as the person, who had caused injuries to him. Being a victim, there would be no chance for P.W.1 to omit the same, though he would have, had the chance to omit other particulars regarding other accused and other injured persons. It is said, P.W.1 appeared before the police station with injuries, blood stained cloth, etc. As admitted by P.W.19, it is a normal procedure of the police, to recover the blood stained cloth, providing substitute and issue medical memo, for taking treatment, referring the injured to the nearest hospital. Here, no medical memo is produced for sending P.W.1 to the hospital. If that is produced, will expose the falsity of the prosecution case viz., Ex.P.1 coming into existence at later point of time, than the time mentioned therein. Therefore, the deduction should be, they have wantonly suppressed the medical memo. When P.W.1 was examined by P.W.14, as spoken by him, at about 12.50 p.m. on 18.9.1989, he had not informed the doctor that he sustained injuries at the hands of known persons, namely the accused, whereas it appears he had reported, as if he had sustained the injuries, in the communal clash. The non production of the medical memo, which ought to have been issued to P.W.1, also would indicate that all is not well with the prosecution case, to say clinchingly that Ex.P.1 might have been recorded at 11.20 a.m. on 18.9.1989. P.W.19 admits during the cross examination that when he went to the village, he had seen A.22, with bleeding injuries and also recorded the statement Ex.P.30, on which basis Ex.P.31 was registered only under Section 324 I.P.C.
30. P.Ws.6 & 7 have deposed that on the date of this incident, there was a communal clash in the village, in which more than 1000 people had involved. P.W.19 also admits, that on 18.9.1989, that there was a communal clash at about 10.30a.m. or so on the western side of the Village in the harijan colony, for which a case is registered in Cr. No.517/89 showing A6 and A26 also as accused. Here also, the incident had taken place, according to the prosecution at 10.00 a.m. If all the accused along with A6 and A26 have participated in this incident, which took place at about 10.00 a.m., there would not have been any possibility for A6 and A26 to commit an other offence more or less at the same time, elsewhere. The trial Court taking into account this factor also, has come to the conclusion, in paragraph-34 of the judgment, that the genesis of the case itself is suppressed and a twisted case is projected, which could not be accepted. It is not the case of the prosecution, that after some of the accused committing rioting at the place described in this final report, went to the western side of the village and committed another offence, for which alone, a case is registered in Cr.No.579/89. In this context, we have to see how many names of the accused are given in the complaint, whether those persons have been identified, at least by P.W.1, who claims he is the author of the first information report.
31. In Ex.P.1, we do not find the names of A16 to A19, A25 and A31. In fact, Ex.P.1 does contain the names of remaining 19 accused, including their surname. If P.W.1 is the author of Ex.P.1, furnishing the particulars spontaneously, because of the fact that he knew all the accused personally and previously, including their names and their fathers' names, he ought to have unhesitatingly given evidence, giving the names of the those accused before the Court, as well as he ought to have identified the accused also, at least in the Court. But, as seen from the oral evidence of P.W.1, he is u nable to identify the accused, and he had not spoken, implicating all the accused also. He admits before the trial Court as observed by the learned trial Judge, that it is not possible for him to identify all the accused, naming them. This part of the evidence given by P.W.1 spontaneously creates doubt, about the origin of Ex.P.1, since it contains the names of 19 accused. Therefore, the corollary must be, Ex.P.1 must have come into existence, not at the instructions or at the instance of P.W.1, but later on, upon deliberation and discussion, including the names of the accused, for the purpose of prosecuting certain persons, since three death had taken place, in addition 11 persons have also been injured. Because of this reason alone, P.W.1 is unable to say the names of all the accused, giving the specific overt acts and he was also unable to identify the accused. Even ignoring the delay, in reaching the FIR to the Court, we are unable to satisfy ourselves, or persuade ourselves, by scanning the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the accused would have committed the offence, as alleged in the final report. In this context, we have to see the injuries sustained by the deceased.
32. As disclosed by Ex.P6., Chinnathambi sustained lacerated wounds on the left forehead, middle of forehead, on the middle of scalp, near the right ear and also on the part of occipital region, thereby showing all the injuries were only on the head. P.W.1 would state that the 7th accused cut Chinnathambi over the back side, which was repeated by P.W.2 also. P.W.3, who claims as an eyewitness has stated, that the 7th accused cut Chinnathambi indiscriminately all over the body. The wife of Chinnathambi namely P.W.8 has also stated that the 7 th accused as well as Kanagaraj, indiscriminately cut Chinnathambi all over the body. If they are to be construed as eyewitnesses and A7 and Kanagaraj are to be dealt with, for the death of Chinnathambi, then their evidence must be, in accordance with the medical certificate. As pointed out by us supra, as seen from Ex.P.6, and as spoken by P.W.13, all the lacerated wounds sustained by Chinnathambi, were only over his head and no injuries were noticed, over the body of Chinnathambi, thereby proving that the so called eye witnesses are not the eye witnesses, and not speaking the truth. Because of the enmity entertained by the schedule caste people, against the caste Hindus, due to communal clash, it appears to our mind, P.Ws.1,2,3 & 7 have given evidence, according to their whims and fancies, to implicate some of the accused, if possible, to convict them, which we are unable to agree. This discrepancy, if read with the delay in submitting the F.I.R. to the Court and the suspicious circumstances, under which Exs.P.1 and P.29 came into existence, would show indisputably, that the prosecution had suppressed the real facts and marched in somebody, to give some evidence, though they were not present at the time of the occurrence or in other words, the accused are not the cause, for the injuries sustained by Chinnathambi.
33. As spoken by P.W.13 and as revealed by Ex.P.8, the deceased Easwaran sustained 4 lacerated wounds over the middle of head, on the lower part of occipital region as well as on the upper part of occipital area. It seems, he had not sustained any injuries over his body, except the head. P.W.1 would state that the 4th accused inflicted only one cut injury, over the head of his brother, but in the complaint given by him, it is stated that the 6th accused, by name Krishnasamy, assaulted Easwaran by using stick. But, as seen from the doctor's evidence, Easwaran sustained as many as 4 lacerated wounds, and we find nil evidence, who caused those injuries, what are the weapons etc. Therefore, the claim of the prosecution witnesses, especially P.W.1 that the 4th accused is the cause for the death of Easwaran could not be believed.
34. Ex.P.10 supported by the oral evidence of P.W.14 would indicate, that Seeniammal died not due to any external injuries, but due to respiratory arrest due to surgical emphysema. How this happened to Seeniammal is not explained by any of the witnesses, satisfactorily. In fact, P.Ws.1 & 2 have not spoken about any assault by any of the accused, causing injuries to Seeniammal. P.W.1 would state that her aunt Seeniammal came from the house and one Kanagaraj assaulted her, over the head with an Aruval, thereby indicating Seeniammal was also seriously assaulted by deadly weapons. But Ex.P.10 does not disclose any cut injuries over the head of Seeniammal, except a structured wound on the left side of the forehead. There is no evidence, whether that structured wound was the cut injury, for which operation was done or something like that. Assuming that Seeniammal sustained some cut injuries, over the head, it is not the case of the doctor, who issued postmortem certificate, that Seeniammal died due to that injury or its aftermath.
354. Further, the evidence given by P.W.1, as if Seeniammal was the victim in the hands of Kanagaraj, is not corroborated by other witnesses. We are having two Kanagaraj in this case: one is A9 and another is A10 namely Jayaraj @ Kanagaraj. It is also not made clear, whether A9 caused injuries to Seeniammal or A10 caused injuries to Seeniammal. Ex.P.1 says "mg;ngh v';f mj;ij rPdpak;khs; Ia;aa;nah Vz;lh rz;il nghLwP';f vd;W nfl;L fpl;L te;Jr;R/ ngh fpHtpd;D brhy;ypfpl;L gd; dPh; bry;tk; jd; ifapy; itj;J ,Ue;j mUthshy; vd; mj;ijapd; bew;wpapy; X';fp btl;odhd;/@ Pannerselvam is arrayed as A5, but contradicting Ex. P.1, the alleged author of the document, has given evidence as if Kanagaraj had caused cut injuries to his aunt. Thus, we find materially contradicting evidence, regarding the injuries sustained by Seeniammal as well as the cause for the death of Seeniammal. Therefore, it is not possible, either to convict A5 or Member Kanagaraj or Jayaraj @ Kanagaraj. In this view for the death of three persons, we are unable to convict any accused, since the alleged eyewitnesses have spoken according to their whims and fancies, materially contradicting the basic document viz., the complaint, though it is not a substantial evidence. Even ignoring Ex.P.1, if we analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears, highly artificial, unbelievable, having inherent deficiency, quoted with much unnaturalness, thereby compelling the Court to say, it is unsafe to accept their ocular testimony.
36. P.W.1 has stated that at about 10.00 a.m. on 18.9.1989, when he was in his house, A1, A4, A5, A7, A8, A11, A12, A15, A13, and another 10 or 15 persons armed with knife, stick, Aruval came to his house, scolded them, pelted stones and on seeing them, he along with Chinnathambi, P.W.2, P.W.8, Easwaran, P.W.3, went inside the house and bolted inside. If it is so, there was no possibility, for these witnesses to witness, what was going on, outside the house. In this view, the case spoken by P.W.1 that A9 Kanagaraj damaged the front door using crowbar and A25 torched the hay-rick must be incorrect. It is not the case of P.W.1, that he viewed the incident through the window or something like that. He says further, because of the smoke, unable to remain inside the house, first, Chinnathambi came out, followed by him and others. He would state further Rajamani (A7) cut Chinnathambi, causing bleeding injuries etc. As we have already pointed out, the evidence given by P.W.1 is not in accordance with the injuries found over the body of Chinnathambi. Even he is u nable to identify who is 12th accused. His attempt to implicate some of the accused, was not corroborated by other witnesses and in fact it is materially contradicted, even by his own statement, alleged to have been given before P.W.19 viz., Ex.P.1. P.W.1 further states that A22 caused cut injuries to his father over the right leg. which is not the case in the postmortem. Since he has contradicted not only Ex.P.1, but also the statements, given by him before P.W.19, as admitted by P.W.19, it is highly unsafe, to rest any conviction upon the evidence of P.W.1 and the same is the case regarding other eyewitnesses also.
37. P.W.2, the father of P.W.1 and Easwaran has stated, that when the accused came to their place armed with Aruval, stick, etc., seeing them P.W.1 and the deceased Chinnathambi went to their terraced house, whereas he went to the house of Easwaran. He says further, he had not closed the doors, which is not the case of P.W.1. Though both claims they were together jointly, at the time of the incident, the evidence given by P.W.2, as if some of the accused cut his brother over the backside of the body, is not corroborated and in this view, he fails to support the evidence of P.W.1 also. P.W.3 who has not identified any accused would state that on seeing the crowd, viz., the accused, they went inside and bolted the door, thereafter, the hay-rick was set on fire by one Singan. According to P.W.3, her father in law was attacked by Madhiazhagan i.e. A1, which is not the case of P.Ws.1 & 2. She would state Mani cut P.W.1, which is not the case of P.W.1 . According to P.W.3, Krishnasamy (A6) attacked Easwaran and in turn P.W.2 attacked Krishnasamy. It is the further case of P.W.3 that A2 2 attacked P.W.2 with Aruval, causing cut injuries over the right leg, which is not supported by medical evidence. The evidence given by P.W.3 also is not in conformity with the evidence given by other witnesses, supported by the previous statement. P.W.4, Sangili would state that Military Perumal had set fire to his house. Identifying A19, he further says that Sudarathevar attacked him causing injuries over the forehead. He has not implicated any other accused and identified the other accused also. P.W.5 generally has spoken about the damage caused to the house by setting fire and he has not implicated any accused, whereas he would state that he sustained injuries only in the fire. P.W.6, who is residing 5 or 6 houses away from the Easwaran's house would state, that he has not come out from the house, thereby failing to implicate even a single accused. This is the case of P.W.7 also, though he would state at later point of time that one Subbaiah assaulted him over his left hand, that too not identifying the accused concerned. P.W.8 would state that on seeing the crowd, all went inside the house and therefore, her subsequent evidence that some of the accused assaulted some of the victims fails to inspire our confidence, to take her as eyewitness, in order to convict any one of the accused. Her case before the doctor, as indicated by us supra is, that she sustained injuries in the communal clash and not in the incident described in the final report, which is not communal clash even according to the prosecution. P.W.9 also has stated that all went inside the house, apprehending danger and after the houses were set on fire, he came out and ran away from the scene of crime, apprehending danger to his life, thereby he also failed to implicate the accused. P.W.10 turned hostile, not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent. P.W.11 also would state that there was a dispute between Devarmar and Chettimar and in the pellmell, he sustained injuries from the hands of Millitary Perumal. He has not implicated any other accused. The village Administrative Officer viz., P.W.12 went to the scene of crime only after the incident at about 12.00 p.m. or so, to be a witness for observation mahazar and for the recovery of some material objects. Thus, if we analyse the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12, nothing comes out materially, connecting the accused so as to say that they might have committed some offence under some provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
38. The learned trial Judge very elaborately and lucidly considered each and every point, raised by both the parties, assigning reasons, based on materials, recorded findings that none of the offences, against the accused is proved and the same could not be described as perverse findings, warranting interference by this Court. As ruled by the Apex Court, even assuming the worst that there is a possibility for taking some other view, since the evidence discloses possibility of two views, a favourable view in favour of the accused should prevail, which prevailed in the minds of the trial Judge, that should continue before us also.
39. Admittedly and as spoken by P.W.19 and as revealed by Medical Certificates (Exs.P21 & P.22), A22 and A6 also sustained injuries and the injuries sustained by A22 were of serious in nature. Considering this fact, the doctor thought it fit that a dying declaration should be taken from A22 and accordingly, a dying declaration, Ex.D.3 was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, ignoring the injuries sustained by A22 or labeling the same as superficial or something like that, the prosecution cannot escape and it is the duty of the prosecution, to explain the same, but we find no explanation and in fact, the complaint received from A22 was referred, as if, it is a mistake of fact. This would indicate that there was no proper legal oriented investigation, causing injustice to A22 also. Probably, A22 also must be the victim of communal clash and he cannot be the aggressor in assaulting the prosecution witnesses or causing death to anybody. In this view, for the non explanation of the injuries sustained by A6 and A22, certainly an adverse inference can be drawn on the line that the genesis of the prosecution, has not emanated from the real incident, whereas we are constrained to say empathetically that it is diluted, diverted, twisted thereby creating indelible doubt, and the benefits automatically should flow to the accused. We feel it is better less said about the investigation said to have been conducted by P.W.19. As we have already pointed out, even the investigating officer has not come out with the genuine case, from its inception, since Exs.P.1 & P.29 are contradicted. The arrest and recovery also appear to be a make-believe affair, so as to say the investigation followed in the proper direction, for which we cannot subscribe our view. As admitted by P.W.19, none of the witnesses have stuck on with the statements given by them before P.W.19 and they have contradicted before the Court, thereby proving that investigation was not properly conducted or P.W.19 has not examined the witnesses and recorded the statements or he ought to have not examined some of the witnesses, who were present or the persons ought to have sustained injuries elsewhere, not at the hands of the accused. In this view, we are constrained to say that the investigation was not properly conducted, with an aim of fixing the culprit, whereas it appears, the investigation has been done in a shabby manner, so as to complete the case and not with an intention to book the guilty, thereby inviting the Court to award appropriate punishment. Thus, the investigation also failed to substantiate the case of the prosecution.
38. Thus, viewing the case from all possible and probable angles, we are fully satisfied that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error, either on facts or on law, warranting our interference and in this view, we would choose to dismiss the appeal, holding there is no merit.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.NO..C.NO.90/91 of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.
kv