Madras High Court
Valliyooran @ Selvaraj vs State Rep. By on 7 February, 2020
Author: R.Pongiappan
Bench: R.Subbiah, R. Pongiappan
Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 27.01.2020
Pronounced on : 07.02.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN
Criminal Appeal No.581 of 2018
Valliyooran @ Selvaraj ... Appellant/Accused
-vs-
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station,
Thiruvarur ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge-Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvarur
dated 05.12.2017 in S.C.No.146 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment passed in S.C.No.146 of 2015 dated 15.02.2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Thiruvarur. Appellant is the sole accused in the abovesaid case. The accused/appellant stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused denied all the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, he was put on trial of the charges. After full fledged trial the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 201 r/w 302 IPC. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Offence Sentence Under Section The accused was ordered to undergo imprisonment for life 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for further six months.
Under Section The accused was ordered to undergo five years rigorous 201 r/w 302 IPC imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for further three months.
The trial Court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court, by way of filing the present criminal appeal. 2/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(i) PW1-M.Arivazhagan, is the brother of the deceased Sumathi. The accused is the husband to the deceased. Before 10 years, from the date of occurrence, the marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized. After the marriage, frequently both the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other and as a result of which, a complaint has been lodged before the police. However, due to the wedlock, deceased and accused have two female children, among which the 1st daughter S.Priyadharshini was with PW1. The 2nd daughter S.Prisha, while at the time of occurrence, was with the deceased. On 28.05.2015, the brother of PW1 informed about the death of Sumathi, to PW1 immediately thereafter, both the PW1 and his brother rushed to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body of Sumathi laid on a mat. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.
(ii) PW17-Thiru.N.Senthil Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station, on 29.05.2015 at about 7.30am, when he was incharge of the abovesaid police station, received the complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.249 of 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P11 is the printed FIR.3/23
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
(iii) After the registration of the case, PW17 went over to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW9-K.Prabu and one Kalaiarasan, he prepared the observation mahazar, under Ex.P2. He drawn two rough sketches under Ex.P12. He recovered the dead body of the Sumathi and entrusted the same to one Rajendran, Special Sub Inspector with a direction to hand over the same to the Government Hospital, Thiruvarur. Before that, he examined the witnesses in the occurrence place, panchayatars and prepared the inquest report under Ex.P13.
(iv) In continuation of investigation, PW17 sent a requisition under Ex.P5, through PW12-P.Vanitha, Grade-I Head Constable to the Doctor for conducting autopsy.
(v) PW13, Dr.B.V.Pavankumar, attached with the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvarur, when he was on duty on 29.05.2015 received the requisition from PW12 and conducted postmortem over the dead body of Sumathi. During the time of postmortem, he found the following injuries.
“1. An incomplete ligature mark seen over front of the neck of length 15x3cm, extending from Left angle of mandible to right medial end of clavicle. Base of the ligature mark is pale. On bloodless dissection of Neck, there is no vital reactions noted. The ligature mark is consistent with postmortem hanging.
2. An abrasion 1x1cm seen over right angle of mandible 4/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 consistent with antemortem nail mark.
3. Patterned contusions seen over right side of the neck consistent with antemortem compression of fingers. On dissection, Subcutaneous contusions seen.
4. On dissection of Neck, Multiple contusions seen over both Carotids consistent with antemortem compression.
5. Multiple postmortem ant bite marks seen over pubic, perineum, buttocks, back of right leg and right foot. Other Findings:
Pleural & peritoneal cavities: - empty, Hyoid bone: Intact. Heart:- Chambers empty, C/s.congested. Coronaries:- patent, Stomach:
150 grams of partly digested food particles noted, mucosa: congested.
Small intestine: empty, mucosa: congested; Lungs: Petechial Hemorrhages seen over both lungs. On C/s. White frothy discharge seen. Liver, Spleen: Kidneys. Brain: cut section congested. Urinary bladder-empty. Uterus: C/s.empty.
He found that the hyoid bone of deceased Sumathi was intact. Postmortem report is marked as Ex.P6. He preserved the viscera for chemical examination.
(vi) In turn, on chemical examination, it was identified that no poisonous substance was found in the dead body of the deceased Sumathi. The viscera report, given by the Department of Forensic Science Thiruvarur was marked as Ex.P15. After receiving the viscera report, PW13- Dr.B.V.Pavankumar, has given the final opinion that the deceased would appeared to have died of Asphyxia due to throttling which is antemortem in 5/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 nature and hanging in postmortem. The said final opinion given by the Doctor is Ex.P7.
(vii) In continuation of the investigation, PW17-after receiving the opinion from the Doctor, altered the section of law as 302 IPC under Ex.P14. Thereafter on 30.05.2015 at about 3.00pm, he arrested the accused and in the presence of PW10-P.Sellapandi, Village Administrative Officer, he recorded the confession statement from the accused. The said statement was typed directly in the computer by PW11-Tmt.Rajani, Head Constable, Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station. In the confession statement, the accused admitted the offence, and willing to identify the saree, which was used for the commission of offence. Following the same, he brought the investigation officer and the witnesses, to his house and identified one saree. PW17, in the presence of same witnesses, recovered the said saree under the cover of Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P4]. Admitted portion of the confession statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P3.
(viii) In the meantime on 29.05.2015 itself, PW17 sent a requisition to PW14-Tmt.G.Valli, the then Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Trichy, for visiting the scene of occurrence. On receipt of the same, PW14, 6/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 visited the scene of occurrence and she has given a report that no prevailing circumstances found in the scene of occurrence for committing the hanging. The said report was marked as Ex.P8. After the receipt of the same, PW17 submitted an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanilam, for recording Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement from PW2. Receiving the requisition given by PW17, PW15-Tmt.Sudha, learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanilam, recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement from PW2 and the same was exhibited as Ex.P9.
(ix) Before that on the date of occurrence, PW16-Dr.N.Mohanasundaram attached with Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital, issued the Accident Register under Ex.P10 that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. Accordingly, after completing the investigation, PW17 came to the positive conclusion that the accused committed an offence of homicidal death and laid the charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 IPC.
4. Based on the materials available, the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, the accused was put on trial. 7/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
5. During the course of trial proceedings, on the side of the prosecution, in order to prove their case, as many as 17 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17 and 15 documents were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Besides, one material object, which was marked as M.O.1.
6. Out the said witnesses, PW1-Arivazhagan, is the brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the marriage of the deceased with the accused; subsequent quarrel happened between them; hearing of news about the death of his sister and the lodging of the complaint before the police station.
7. PW2-S.Prisha, is the younger daughter of the accused and the deceased. She is about 11 years at the time of occurrence. In her evidence, she has stated that her father was having the habit of drinking alcohol and used to come home always in a drunken mood and on 28.05.2015 her father asked money from her mother for drinking liquor and when her mother denied, accused slapped on her cheek and when she fell down and became unconscious, he sat on her mother and killed her by throttled her with the saree. She has further stated that when she requested the accused not to do so, the accused shouted at her to keep quiet. After the registration of the 8/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 case, she gave a statement before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, in respect to the occurrence.
8. PW3-S.Priyasharshini, is the elder daughter of the accused. She has spoken about the quarrel made between the accused and the deceased. According to her, only after hearing the news that her mother was hanged, she went to the house of the accused and saw her mother was laid on the mat and her sister told her that her father throttled their mother with the saree.
9. PW4-Maheswari, is the neighbour as well as brother's wife of the accused. On the fateful day upon hearing the hue and cry from the house of the accused she rushed and saw the accused and his daughter crying, when at the time deceased was laid on the mat.
10. PW5-Jhansirani, is also the neighbour to the deceased. PW6-Selvam is the brother of the accused. Both of them has spoken about the frequent quarrel happened between the accused and the deceased. PW7-Manohar and PW8-Thiyagarajan are the relatives of the deceased Sumathi. Both of them have stated that after hearing the news, they went to the scene of occurrence and on enquiry, they heard that the accused strangled the deceased. PW9- 9/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 Prabu is an auto driver by profession. He has stated about the preparation of the observation mahazar by the investigation officer.
11. PW10-Sellapandi, is the then Village Administrative Officer, Vilamal Village. He has spoken about the arrest of the accused and about the confession recorded by him and about the recovery made in the house of the accused. PW11-Tmt.Ranjani, the then Head Constable, Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station, has stated about the preparation of confession statement given by the accused. PW12-Vanitha, is also the Head constable attached with the Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station. She has stated about the entrustment of dead body to the Doctor for postmortem.
12. PW13, Dr.B.V.Pavankumar, attached with Thiruvarur Government Hospital, has spoken about the details of injuries found in the dead body of Sumathi and about the cause of death. PW14-Tmt.G.Valli is the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Trichy. According to her she has visited the scene of occurrence and gave the report that no symptoms are found in the occurrence in respect to the alleged hanging of the deceased Sumathi.
10/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
13. PW15-Tmt.Sudha, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nanilam, has spoken about the recording of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement from the PW2. PW16-Dr.Mohanasundaram, is attached with Thiruvarur Government Hospital. He has stated about the issuance of Accident Register copy in which he has stated that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. PW17- Thiru.N.Senthil Kumar, is the Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Taluk Police Station, he has spoken about the registration of the case, the details of investigation and about the laying of the charge sheet.
14. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not chose to examine any witness or mark any document on his side.
15. Having considered all the above, the learned Sessions Judge, found the appellant guilty for the homicidal death and causing disappearance of evidence of offence. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 IPC and sentenced, as stated in the 1 st paragraph of this judgment.
11/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
16. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.
17. We have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused and Ms.M.Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the records carefully.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused would contend that though PW2 who is the minor child born to the deceased, had given evidence in support of the prosecution, the cross examination made by the accused towards PW2 and the evidence given by the doctor in respect to the injuries sustained by the deceased, are inconsistent in nature. In fact the evidence given by PW2 has not been corroborated through the evidence of doctor. Further, the evidence given by the expert i.e Doctor and the Scientific Assistant are not substantial piece of evidence to accept the case of the prosecution. In fact their evidence must have been corroborated through the testimony of eye witness. But in this case, to speak about the occurrence, only the daughter of the deceased was examined as PW2. Though the said evidence given by her is in support of the prosecution, the same has not been corroborated through an expert evidence and therefore, convicting the 12/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 accused is against the principle of law laid down in this country. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal.
19. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that before giving the evidence, PW2 has given statement before the competent judicial forum in which she has perfectly narrated the occurrence. Therefore, the solitary testimony of child witness is alone sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. According to her, the evidence given by the doctor, who conducted postmortem in respect to the injuries sustained by the deceased is fully corroborated through the evidence of PW2. To substantiate the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she has relied on the following judgments.
(i) B.A.Umesh Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 124
(ii) Suresh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1981 SCR (3) 259
(iii) Tehal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1979 AIR (SC) 1347
20. On culling out the entire judgments relied on by the prosecution, it is true, if the evidence given by the child witness is having satisfaction up to the level of accepting the case of the prosecution, then the testimony of the child witness can be accepted.
13/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
21. On considering the said submission, it is true the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to draw the witness to be a competent one. On the contra, Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, is an enabling provision which envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions because of tender years, extreme old age or disease. It cannot be said that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable.
22. Accordingly, we fully accept the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, subject to the condition that the evidence given by PW2 is a reliable one. In this aspect, it is not in dispute that before giving evidence before the trial Court, PW2 was examined by the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Nanilam and recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, PW2 has stated the entire occurrence as stated before the trial Court.
23. However on that aspect the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 14/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 the appellant/accused made a submission that the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement could be used only for corroborating purpose. In otherwise, the said statement is not at all useful to accept the case of the prosecution.
24. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court, in Sivakumar Vs. State [Crl.A.No.131 of 2014 dated 31.07.2015]. This Court has already held that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement is not substantive evidence, because of the reason that the same was not recorded in the presence of the accused. In fact with regard to the value to be given to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C in Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur, reported in AIR 1972 SC 468, our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under.
“8. A statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. It can be used to contradict a witness....”
25. Therefore, the principle laid down by our Hon'ble Apex Court is clear that the statement given by the witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has no relevance to find out the occurrence, except for the purpose of corroboration.
26. So, applying the abovesaid principle to the case in our hand, in this case also the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by PW2 cannot be fully 15/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 accepted for accepting the case of the prosecution.
27. The next aspect to be decided in this case is the evidences of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, who inspected the scene of occurrence. The doctor has given final opinion that only by throttling, the death would have occurred to the deceased. On the other hand, the Scientific Assistant has stated that no prevailing circumstances are available in the scene of occurrence for committing the act of hanging.
28. In this aspect the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused would contend that the evidence given by the expert is not having any much value. The evidence given by the expert is nothing but a weak piece of evidence. Hence the said evidence cannot be fully accepted for convicting the accused. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused relied on the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1973 (2) SCC 86, wherein it has been held that the opinion given by the expert has to be received with great caution.
29. Infact, Indian Evidence Act, provide relevancy of opinion of third persons, which is commonly called in our day to day practice as expert’s 16/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 opinion. These provisions are exceptional in nature to the general rule that evidence is to be given of the facts only which are within the knowledge of a witness. The exception is based on the principle that the Court can’t form opinion on the matters, which are technically complicated and professionally sophisticated, without assistance of the persons who have acquired special knowledge and skill on those matters.
30. However, in the judgment of S.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2184, our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“27..... The evidence of an expert is rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering 'conclusive' proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking, independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 1091), while dealing with evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:
"We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with mare caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law.17/23
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Vs. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Vs. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial."
31. In the said circumstances, we have to carefully analyse whether the evidence given by PW2 is corroborated through the evidence of expert without creating a suspicious circumstances. Recently, our Hon'ble Apex Court while at the time of deciding the case of Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 778, at paragraph no.28, has held as 18/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 follows:
“22. The differences between hanging and strangulation have been highlighted by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition, as follows:
Hanging Strangulation
1 Most suicidal. 1 Mostly homicidal.
2 Face-Usual pale and petechiae - 2 Face-Congested, livid and marked
rare. with petechiae.
3 Saliva-Dribbling out of mouth down 3 Saliva-No such dribbling on the chin and chest.
4 Neck-Stretched and elongated in 4 Neck-Not so. fresh bodies.
5 External signs of asphyxia usually 5 External signs of asphyxia, very well
not well marked. marked (minimal if death due to
vasovagal and carotid sinus effect).
6 Ligature mark-Oblique, non- 6 Ligature mark-Horizontal or
continuous placed high up in the transverse continuous, round the
neck between the chin and the neck, low down in the neck below the
larynx, the base of the groove or thyroid, the base of the groove or
furrow being hard, yellow and furrow being soft and reddish.
Parachment-like.
7 Abrasions and ecchymoses round 7 Abrasions and ecchymoses round
about the edges of the ligature about the edges of the ligature Mark, mark, rare. common.
8 Subcutaneous tissues Under the 8 Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. mark-Ecchymosed. 9 Injury to the muscles of Neck-Rare. 9 Injury to the muscles of the neck
-Common.
10 Carotid arteries, Internal coats 10 Carotid arteries, internal coats
ruptured in ordinarily ruptured.
11 Fracture of the larynx and trachea- 11 Fracture of the larynx, trachea and Very rare and may be found that too hyoid bone.
in judicial hanging.
12 Fracture-dislocation of the cervical 12 Fracture-dislocation of the cervical
19/23
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.581 of 2018
Hanging Strangulation
vertebrae-Common in judicial vertebrae-Rare.
hanging.
13 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on 13 Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks the face, neck and other parts of and bruises on the face, neck and the body Usually not present. other parts of the body-Usually present.
14 No evidence of sexual Assault. 14 No evidence of sexual assault. 15 Emphysematous bullae on Surface of 15 Emphysematous bullae on the-
the lungs - Not present. surface of the lungs - May be Present.
32. So, applying the principles set out by our Hon'ble Apex Court, in this case wherein at the time of giving evidence as PW13, the Doctor, who has conducted the postmortem has stated about the ligature mark as follows:
“1. An incomplete ligature mark seen over front of the neck of length 15x3cm, extending from Left angle of mandible to right medial end of clavicle. Base of the ligature mark is pale. On bloodless dissection of Neck, there is no vital reactions noted. The ligature mark is consistent with postmortem hanging.”
33. Now as per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, if a person has died due to strangulation, the ligature mark looks like a horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. Whereas in the case of hanging, the ligature mark looks like oblique, non-continuous 20/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and Parachment-like.
34. Here is the case, where as per the evidence of doctor the ligature mark is an incomplete one. If suppose as stated by PW2, the accused pressed the neck of the deceased by using the saree, definitely there must be a continuous ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. More than that, if a person by using his hand, press others neck, definitely there may be chances for occurring abrasion in the either side of the body.
35. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the expert evidence in respect to the injury has not tallied with the evidence of PW2. In the said circumstances, the evidence given by PW2 is not up to the level of inspiring confidence over his evidence. Further, in this case, except PW2, no other person has stated about the occurrence. Therefore, the only one evidence available, who was speaking the occurrence is also not having any trust worthy. The trial Court without appreciating the said situation has convicted the accused which is not correct in law.
36. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence 21/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 imposed upon the appellant/accused, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thiruvarur, in S.C.No.146 of 2015 dated 15.02.2017 is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
[R.P.S., J.] [R.P.A., J.] 07.02.2020 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes ars To The Sessions Judge-Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvarur 22/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.581 of 2018 R.SUBBIAH, J.
AND R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
ars Pre-delivery judgment in Criminal Appeal No.581 of 2018 07.02.2020 23/23 http://www.judis.nic.in