Madras High Court
J.R.Venkatapathy vs The State Rep By on 5 September, 2018
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 03.08.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 05.09.2018 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.A.No.558 of 2010
1. J.R.Venkatapathy
2. Venkataraman @ Edagan
3. K.A.Paulraj
4. K.K.Subramani ... Appellants/A1,3,5 and 7 Vs The State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barugur, Krishnagiri District Crime No.509 of 2003 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in S.C.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and acquit the appellants of all the charges and allow the appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, senior counsel for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondent : Ms.M.Prabhavathi Ganesh Ram Additional Public Prosecutor J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2010 passed in S.C.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby convicted the appellants/A1,A3,A5 and A7 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 384 read with 511 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989 and also 3(1)(3) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, and sentenced them as follows:
U/s 147 of I.P.C. - to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment each;
U/s 341 of I.P.C. - to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo one week simple imprisonment each;
U/s 323 of I.P.C. - to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment each;
U/s. 384 read with 511 of I.P.C. - to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo one month imprisonment each;
U/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 - to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo one week imprisonment each; and U/s 3(1)(3) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 - to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default in payment of fine to undergo one week imprisonment each.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2003 at about 05.30 a.m., a tractor belongs to one Dhasarathan was broke down, when it was driven by P.W.1. Therefore, to start the said tractor, P.W.1 along with P.Ws.4 and 5 tried to push the tractor. At that time, the appellants and 4 others unlawfully assembled together and obstructed the road at Kittampatti to Kannandahalli Road and stopped the tractor and demanded a sum of Rs.100/-, failing which, they would not allow them to take the tractor. They also took the key of the tractor. When the same was questioned by P.W.1, immediately, the first appellant attacked P.W.1 by stone on his head. When P.W.1 escaped from the attack, he resisted by his right hand, in which, he sustained injury. The other appellants and others also demanded a sum of Rs.100/- and also scolded them with filthy language and abuse P.W.1 by calling his caste name. When P.Ws.3,4,5 and 7 intercepted the quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellants, the appellants and other also attacked them and scolded with filthy language and also abused them in their caste name. Therefore, all of them were sustained injuries and after informing the incident to the owner of the tractor by P.W.1, they went to the hospital. On information, P.W.21, Sub Inspector of Police went to Krishnagiri Government Hospital and recorded the statement, Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered the same in crime No.509 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 against 8 persons. Since the offences are being under SC/ST Act, the investigation had been done P.W.24, Deputy Superintendent of Police and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against 8 persons for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 384 read with 511 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. The trial Court framed charges as stated supra and the accused denied the same and claimed for trial.
3. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.24 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and produced M.Os.1 and 2. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no exhibit was marked. The trial Court, based on the incriminating evidence, questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and they denied the same. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused A1, A3, A5 and A7 for the offences stated above and acquitted the accused A2, A4, A6 and A8 from all the charges. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, A1, A3, A5 and A7 preferred this appeal.
4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to prove the charges against the accused. P.W.1 stated in his statement, Ex.P1, that totally 8 persons were attacked him and P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 7 by hands and stone. Whereas, all of them deposed that they were attacked by only 4 persons viz., the appellants herein. They have been taken to hospital by one Subramani, P.W.11 and P.W.19 Doctor treated them. While taking treatment, P.W.1 stated before the doctor that he was attacked by 5 known persons; P.W.2 stated that he was attacked by 3 known persons; P.W.3 stated that he was attacked by 5 known persons and P.W.4 stated that he was attacked by 8 known persons. But, during trial, all of them have deposed that they were attacked by 4 known persons viz., the appellants herein. Therefore, these contradictions are fatal to the entire case of the prosecution and as such, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellants herein.
5. Further the learned senior counsel for the appellants would contend that even as per FIR and depositions, the offences under Section 383 of I.P.C. would not attract against the appellants, since even according to the prosecution that they had not allowed the tractor to move further and demanded a sum of Rs.100/- and any of the ingredients of Section 383 of I.P.C. would not attract against the appellants. Therefore, the charge itself is baseless and the appellants are liable to be acquitted.
6.Further, the learned senior counsel contended that all P.Ws.1 to 5 used to mining river sand illegally and transported to sell the same in black market. While questioning the same, there was a quarrel between them, in which, the appellants also sustained injuries and they have lodged a complaint before the same Sub Inspector of Police viz; P.W.21 and the same has been registered in crime No.508 of 2003 against P.W.1 and others. Only thereafter, to escape from the clutches of law, P.W.1 lodged a counter complaint in crime No.509 of 2003. The prosecution suppressed the said fact and therefore, the investigating officer did not follow the rule of 588 (A) of Madras Police Standing Orders and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
7.Further, he contended that the investigating officer completely suppressed the earlier case and did not file any charge sheet on the said complaint given by the appellants herein. He further contended that already there was clashes in respect of illegal mining of river sand by P.Ws.1 to 5, in which, there was a complainant and the same has been referred to the Executive Magistrate and an enquiry has been conducted under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been categorically admitted by P.Ws.20 to 22. Therefore, the entire occurrence has been falsely foisted against the appellants and therefore, he prayed to set aside the conviction.
8. Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.Ws.1 to 5 have clearly deposed that they were attacked by the appellants and abused them with their caste name. Further, they sustained injuries and P.W.19 doctor treated them and issued wound certificates viz., Exs.P.17 to P.20. Further, they extorted the defacto complainant and others and demanded a sum of Rs.100/- and as such, the offence under Section 383 of I.P.C. attracted against the appellant and the prosecution proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference from this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9.Heard the rival submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials placed before this Court.
10. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 to 4 were attacked by the appellants and abused them by using their case name and scolded them in filthy language, when they refused to give money. While the appellants stopping their tractor, they were also attacked by the appellants. They have been treated by Doctor P.W19, who issued wound certificates Exs.P17 to P20.
11.Now, this Court has to decide whether the appellants with an intention insulted P.Ws. 1 to 5, by abusing their community. To support the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5, in which, P.Ws.1 to 4 are victims and P.W.5 is the friend of P.Ws.1 to 4. Except them, no other no other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Further P.Ws.1 to 4 stated before the Doctor, P.W.19 that they were attacked by five, four, three and eight persons respectively, whereas P.W.1 has given statement in Ex.P1 that they were attacked by 8 known persons. Wound certificates Exs.P17 to 20, being the earliest documents proved that there were a group of people assembled and had petty quarrel. Therefore, the appellants were also sustained injury and lodged a complaint before the very same Police Officer P.W.21 and registered in Crime No.508 of 2003 as against P.Ws.1 to 4. Therefore, there is no clinching evidence to show that the appellants abused P.Ws.1 to 4 by using their caste name and there is no specific overt act as against the appellants in respect of attach, since number of accused persons differs from each of the witnesses. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of SC/ST (PA)Act, 1989 have not been proved against the appellants. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 against the appellants are hereby set aside and the appellants/A1, A3, A5 and A7 are acquitted from the above said charges.
12. Next, this Court has to decide whether the ingredients under Section 323 of IPC has been made out as against the appellants. In respect of the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 4 are concerned, P.W.19 the Doctor was examined and marked Exs.P.17 to 20, wound certificates. It is seen from Exs.P.17 to 20 that P.Ws.1 to 4 were attacked by known persons and all the injuries are certified as simple in nature. To establish the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 4, the relevant portion of the evidence of Doctor, P.W.19 is as follows:
19/09/03 md;W muR kUj;Jtkid fpUc&;zfphpapy; gzpapypUf;Fk; nghJ. khiy 4/15 kzpf;F bghd;Drhkp taJ?47. fz;zd;lcws;sp fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;jth; jdJ cwtpdh; Rg;gpukzpia miHj;Jf; bfhz;L te;jhh;/ 19/9/2003 md;W tpoaw;fhiy 5/30 kzpf;F jd;id bjhpe;j Ie;J egh;fs; if. fhy;. Mfpatw;why; fz;zd;lcws;sp gps;isahh; nfhtpy; Kd;ghf moj;jjhfr; brhd;dhh;/ fPH;f;fz;l fha';fs;
1) rpuha;g;g[ fhak; 10 x 2 x 2br/kP/ mstpYk; tyJ Kd;ifapy; Kd;gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;jJ/
2) fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 3 br/kP/ mstpy; ,lJ njhs; gl;ilapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
3) fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 2 ,lJ g[l;lj;jpd; kPJ fhzg;gl;lJ/ nkw;brhd;d fha';fs; rhjhuz fha';fs; vd;W rhd;W mspj;njd;/ ehd; mtUf;F bfhLj;j fhar;rhd;W ,Jjhd;/ m/rh/M/17 MFk;/ nkw;brhd;d fha';fs; mth; fPnH tpGk;nghJ Vw;gl tha;g;g[z;L vd;why; cz;L/ mnj njjpapy; khiy 4/15 kzpf;F utp taJ 35 vd;gth; mth; cwtpdh; Rg;gpukzpia miHj;Jf;bfhz;L te;jhh;/ mth; TwpaJ mnj njjpapy; tpoaw;fhiy 5/30 kzpf;F jd;idj; bjhpe;j 3 ngh;. brUg;g[f;fhy;. if nghd;wtw;why; gps;isahh; nfhtpy;Kd;g[ jhf;fpajhfr; brhd;dhh;/ mtiug; ghpnrhjpj;J fPH;f;fz;l fha';fs; ,Ue;jJ /;?
1) rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 6x 4 br/kP/ ,lJg[w fGj;jpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
2) rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 10 x 3 br/kP mstpy; ,lJ KH';ifapy; Kd;dhy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
3) fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 3 br/kP/ mstpy; ,lJ be";Rg;gFjpapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
4) fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; tyJ njhs;gl;ilapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ nkw;brhd;d fha';fs; rhjhuz fha';fs; vd;W ehd; mtUf;F rhjhuz fhak; vd;W rhd;W tH';fpndd;/ mJ m/rh/M/18/ mtUf;F Vw;gl;l fha';fs; mth; brhd;d tpjj;jpy; Vw;gl tha;g;g[z;L vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mnj njjpapy; khiy 4 kzpf;F rPdpthrd; taJ?29. mnj Ciur; nrh;e;jth; jdJ cwtpdh; Rg;gpukzpa[ld; te;jhh;/ mtiu ghpnrhjpj;jjpy; mtUf;F fPnH fz;l fha';fs; fhzg;gl;lJ /;?
tpoaw;fhiy 5/30 kzpf;F jd;idj; bjhpe;j 5 egh;fs; if. fhy;. br';fy; nghd;wtw;why; fz;zd;lcws;sp gps;isahh; nfhtpy;Kd;g[ jhf;fpajhfr; brhd;dhh;/ fPH;f;fz;l fha';fs; mtUf;F ghpnrhjidapd; nghJ mwpag;gl;lJ/
1)rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 3 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; bfz;ilf;fhypy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
2)rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 1 x 1 bjhilapd; tyJ gf;fk; fhzg;gl;lJ/
3)rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 1 x 1 br/kP/ tyJ fhzg;gl;lJ/
4)rpuha;g;g[f; fhak; 2 x 2 br/kP tyJ fhypd; Kd;gFjpapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
5)fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 3 br/kP/ mstpy; be";rpd; ,lJgf;fk; fhzg;gl;lJ/ nkw;brhd;d fha';fs; rhjhuz fhak; vd;W rhd;W tH';fpndd;/ mr;rhd;W m/rh/M/19 MFk;/ mnj ehspy; 8/30 ,utpy; Kdpuh$; taJ?35. j-bg/fpUc&;zd; mnj Ciur; nrh;e;jth; jUkd; vd;w jdJ cwtpdUld; rpfpr;irf;fhf te;jhh;/ mnj njjpapy; jd;id tpoaw;fhiy 5/30 kzpf;F 8 bjhpe;j egh;fs; fy;yhy; fz;zd;lcws;sp gps;isahh; nfhtpy; Kd;ghfj; jhf;fpajhr; brhd;dhh;/ mtUf;F 1)fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; tyJ Kd;ifapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
2)fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; tyJ kzpf;fl;oy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
3)fd;dpa 1 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; tyJ ifapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/
4)fd;dpa fhak; 2 x 2 br/kP/ mstpy; ,lJ njhs;gl;ilapy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ nkw;brhd;d fha';fs; rhjhuz fha';fs; vd;W rhd;W tH';fpndd;/ mJ m/rh/M/20 MFk;/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf vd;id fhty;Jizf; fz;fhzpg;ghsh; tprhhpj;jhh;. It is seen from the above that there are contradictions between the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the medical evidence. Moreover, there is no specific overt acts as against the appellants to corroborate the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 4. The medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.
13. It is also seen from the records that for the very same occurrence took place at about 5.00 a.m., on the same day, prior to the present crime number, the appellants lodged a complaint before P.W.21 and the same was registered in Crime No.508 of 2003 against P.Ws.1 to 4. But, the prosecution failed to mark the said complaint, FIR and final report if any and there is no evidence as to what happened to the same. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of P.W.21, which reads as follows:
md;W fhty;epiyaj;jpy; ehd; gzpapy;jhd; ,Ue;njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. 19.9.03 md;W mjpfhiy 5 kzp mstpy; 3k; vjphp VLfhd; jd;id m.rh.M 1y; cs;s ehd;FngUk; kw;Wk; 4 ngUk; moj;jjhf fpUc&;zfphp muR kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir bgw;wjhf mth; bfhLj;j g[fhhpd; nghpy; Fw;w vz;.508/03 tHf;F gjpt[ bra;njd;. me;j tHf;ifa[k; ehd;jhd; gjpt[ bra;njd;. nkw;brhd;d tHf;fpy; bghd;Drhkp. rPdpthrd;. Kdpuh$;. fpUc&;zK:h;j;jp. Rg;gpukzp Mfpnahh;fs; vjphpfshff; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;shh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. VLfhd; bfhLj;j g[fhhpy; jpUl;Lj;jdkhf vLf;f te;j kziy vLj;jij jLj;jjhy; jd;id vjphpfs; jhf;fpajhfr; brhd;dhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. Fw;w vz;.508/03 kw;Wk; 509/03 tHf;F tHf;F K:yk; xd;Wjhdh vd;why; rhpjhd;. Fw;w vz;.508/03 tHf;fpy; rhl;rpfshf ahiu tprhhpj;jhh;fs; vd;W vdf;Fj; bjhpahJ. Vw;bfdnt fz;zd;l+s;sp fpuhkj;jpy; ,U nfhc&;;of;Fk; jfuhW Vw;gl;L 107 F.tp.K.r. tHf;F gjpt[ bra;J tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpah; tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;lhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. It is seen from the above that the first complaint has been lodged by the appellants as against the accused. Further, it reveals that in respect of illegal mining of river sand, P.Ws.1 to 4 were already faced the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the date of occurrence also, there was a quarrel in respect of the illegal mining of river sand by P.Ws.1 to 4 herein. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have enquired the complaint lodged by the appellants and ought to have followed the procedures laid under Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders.
14. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (4) CTC 280 - Kamala Anbarasu Vs. The State rep by the Inspector of Police, V-2 Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai, wherein, this Court has held as follows :-
"6. It is relevant to focus attention on Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Order which stipulates as under :-
In a complaint and counter complaint arising out of a same transaction, the investigation officer has to enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, namely, (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases it he finds them untrue. If the Investigation Officer finds that either of the course is difficult, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the complainant or the counter-complainant, as the case may be should be advised about the disposal by a notice in Form-96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police.
While such being the law, the investigating officer, the respondent herein does not seem to have adopted the method that is to be followed in the investigation of cases in counter and therefore, this Court has to pass an order laying emphasis of such a procedure to be adopted as it has been given under Rule 588-A of the Madras Police Standing Order and in these circumstances, this Court is inclined to quash the charge sheet already filed in C.C.No.3976 of 2002 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, the same having been laid adopting an irregular procedure unknown to law and further direct the Deputy Commissioner (Law and Order) South, Chennai to entrust both the above cases with an officer of the Special Wing with outstanding ability and integrity to take the investigation in both the cases and file the final report, as expeditiously as possible and hence, the following order"
Further, it is also seen from the evidence of P.W.24 that the appellants lodged the complaint and the same was registered in crime No.508 of 2003 as against P.Ws.1 to 4 herein. The relevant portion of evidence of P.W.24 is extracted herein:
19.09.2003 md;W fhiy 5 kzpf;F 3k; vjphp bfhLj;j g[fhiug; bgw;W fhty;epiyaf; Fw;w vz;.508/03 gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ. fz;zz;l+s;sp fpuhkk; kj;J}h; fhty;epiya vy;iff;Fl;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. kj;J}hpy; Muk;g Rfhjhu epiyak; cs;sJ. Fw;w vz;.508/2003 g[fhh; 2.30 kzpf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ. 20.9.2003 ,t;tHf;fpd; g[fhiug; bgw;W kj;J}h; fhty;epiya Fw;w vz;.509/2003 md;W tpoaw;fhiy 2.30 kzpf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ. fz;zz;l+s;spapypUe;J kj;J}h; Rkhh; 5fp.kP J}uk; cs;sJ. fpUc&;zfphp 25 fp.kP. J}uk; ,Uf;Fk;. ngUe;jpy; brd;why;fz;zz;l+s;sapypUe;J kj;J}Uf;F 10 epkplj;jpy; brd;W tplyhk;. fpUc&;zfphpf;F 30 epkplj;jpy; brd;W tplyhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;;. Fw;w vz;.508/2003 kw;Wk; Fw;w vz;.509/2003 xd;Wld; xd;W bjhlh;g[ilaJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. Fw;w vz;.508/2003 r';fjpiag; bghWj;j tiuapy; tprhuiz bra;J tHf;fpid Koj;J tpl;nld;. Nghyp]; epiyahiz xnu rkaj;jpy; xnu rk;gtk; bjhlh;ghf ,U g[fhh; bgwg;gl;lhy; ,U g[fhiua[k; xnu rkaj;jpy; tprhuiz bra;J ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;antz;Lk;. mt;thwhd fl;lha Miz ,y;iy. Fw;wkpiHj;Js;shh; vd;W ePjpkd;wk;jhd; Kot[ bra;antz;Lk;. nghyprhh; Kot[ bra;a KoahJ vd;why; rhpay;y. mt;thW nghyprhnu Kot[ bra;J Fw;w vz;.508/03 eh';fns tprhuiz bra;J Kof;fg;gl;lJ jtW vd;why; rhpay;y. ,e;j tHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l Mtz';fis eh';fnsjhd; jahh; bra;njhk;. fz;zz;l+s;sp fpuhkj;jpy; 2003 ,UntW gphptpdUf;F fUj;J ntWghL Vw;gl;L mjd; fhuzkhf tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpah; fpuhkj;jpy; tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;lhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,.j.r. gphpt[ 107 tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. nkw;brhd;d tHf;fpy; V ghh;l;o> gp ghh;l;o vd;W gphptpid bra;J V ghh;l;of;F 1k; vjphp btq;flgjpa[k;> gp ghh;l;o nf.Mh;.fpUc&;zd; kw;Wk; jrujd; xU jug;ghft[k; nrh;f;fg;gl;lhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. Vw;bfdnt RLfhL mikg;gJ gw;wp fUj;J ntWghL ,Ue;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. gphpt[ 107y; Vw;gl;l eltof;ifapy; r.vz;.711/3 RLfhL glk; bra;ag;gl;L tl;lhl;rpah; tprhuiz bra;J nkw;brhd;d rh;nt vz;. RLfhL vd;W ,Uf;fntz;Lk; vd;W cj;jutpl;Ls;shh; vd;why; rhpjhd; It is seen from the above, the prosecution failed to follow the rule 588-A of the Police Standing Orders and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 323 of IPC as against the appellants and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 323 of IPC is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Section 323 of IPC.
16.As far as the charge under Section 383 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is relevant to extract the provision of Section 383 of I.P.C., which read as follows:
383. Extortion Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".
Admittedly, the appellants did not put any person in fear of any injury or dishonestly induces the person so put in feat to deliver to any person any property. Even according to the case of the prosecution, when the tractor broke down, it was obstructed by the appellants herein and to move the tractor, they demanded a sum of Rs.100/-. The prosecution failed to prove on what purpose, the demand was made and hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 383 of I.P.C. would not attract as against the appellants herein.
17.Further, in view of the criminal case registered against P.Ws.1 to 4 in crime No.508 of 2003, it is proved that there was a quarrel between two groups in respect of illegal mining of river sand. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove any of the charge beyond any reasonable doubt as against the appellants. Moreover, when the trial Court found the accused A2, A4, A6 and A8 not guilty for the charges framed against them, these appellants also standing in the same footings. Therefore, these appellants are also entitled for same benefit of acquittal. As such, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants.
18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A1, A3, A5 and A7 in the judgment dated 24.08.2010 in S.C.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri are hereby set aside. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled.
05.09.2018 Index:Yes Internet:Yes Arul To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barugur, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., Arul JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.558 OF 2010 05.09.2018