Madras High Court
Kaliappan vs Vimala Akkinirasu on 13 July, 2007
Author: P.Murgesen
Bench: P.Murgesen
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13/07/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN Criminal Revision Case No.969 of 2004 Kaliappan ... Petitioner P.W.1 Vs. 1.Vimala Akkinirasu 2.Akkinirasu 3.Easwaran 4.Vellaichamy 5.Jeeva alias Jeevanandham 6.Murugan 7.Ayyadurai 8.Chinnaponnu 9.Veeramani 10.Manimaran 11.Lakshmi ... Respondents Accused No.1 to 11 12.State by Inspector of Police Silaiman Police Station Madurai District. Cr.No.182 of 2001 Prayer This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai in S.C.No.309 of 2003 dated 16.03.2004. !For appellants .... Mr.K.Jegannathan ^For Respondents .... Mr.K.Sundaravel for R1 to R11 for R.12 : Mr.L.Murugan, G.A.(Crl. Side) :ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai in S.C.No.309 of 2003 dated 16.03.2004.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
(a) P.W.1, Kaliappan is an agriculturist in Thirumanampathi Village.
P.W.2, Rajalakshmi is his wife. They got six children. P.W.6, Kallanai and P.W.7 Easwaran are his Son-in-laws. P.W.1, was the branch Secretary of A.D.M.K. On 24.10.2001, there was election in Angadimangalam Panchayat. First accused contested as supporter of D.M.K. One Katherammal wife of one kareem contested as supporter of A.D.M.K. P.W.1 worked for Katherammal. So, first accused questioned him that why he has not worked for his candidate.
(b) On the same day, the accused came with stick, Aruval, and weapons to his house and attacked him, P.W.2 and their son deceased Dhanasekaran. P.W.3, Vellaichamy was the driver. He took the injured persons to hospital. P.W.4, Anbu was the resident of Mela Vadakkur. He know the occurrence. P.W.5, Malaichamy was the resident of Thirumanambathi. P.WS.6 and 7 are the Son-in- laws of P.W.1. As a result of the occurrence, P.W.1's son Dhanasekaran died. Then, P.W.1 gave a complaint Ex.P.1, to Silaiman Police Station.
(c) P.W.11, Janakiraman was the in charge of Silaiman Police Station. On 24.10.l2001, at about 8.00 A.M., he received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.182 of 2001 under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 427 and 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.6, the printed First Information Report and despatched the same to Court and superior officials through P.W.12, Nagendran, Grade I Police Constable.
(d) P.W.16, Venkatachalapathy, Inspector of Police, was the in charge of Silaiman Circle. On 24.10.2001, when he was engaged in Chief Minister's bandobust, he received a message from P.W.11, and he took up the case for investigation and he proceeded the scene of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M., and prepared Ex.P.2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.10, the Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.9 Muthuraman and one Neelamegam. Then at about 9.45 A.M., he recovered M.O.1 broken stones and M.O.2 broken bricks under Athatchi Ex.P.3. At about 10.00 A.M., he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Dhanasekaran and prepared Ex.P.11, the Inquest Report. Then the body was sent to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai for conducting Post-mortem through P.W.13.Radhamanalan, Head Constable and sent the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 for treatment with medical memos.
(e) The injured persons were treated by P.W.10, Pounraj. On 24.10.2001 at about 12.55, he gave treatment to P.W.1 and found following injuries on his body.
1. Contusion over left abdomen 4" x 2"
2. Contusion over left fore hand 2" x 2"
Ex.P.4 is the Accident Register. He was of the opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. Then, he treated P.W.2 and found following injuries on her body.
1. Contusion over right thigh 3" x 1"
2. Contusion over left shoulder 2" x 1"
Ex.P.5 is the Accident Register. He was of the opinion that the injuries are simple in nature.
(f) P.W.14,Dr.Mohan K Daniel attached to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai conducted Post-mortem and found following injuries on the body of deceased.
"Haematoma in the mid-occipital region 6 cm x 4 cm x 1 cm in the scalp.
On dissection of Scalp, Skull and dura:
Contusion in the scalp 6cm x 4 cm on the mid-occipital region. Crack fracture in the mid occipital region 6 cm in length. Subdural haematoma about 100 grams noted over the occipital lobe. Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both the cerebral hemispheres.
Ex.P.11 is the Post-mortem Certificate. He has also opined that "the deceased would appear to have died of Cranio-Cerebral injury".
(g) Thereafter, the material objects were sent to Forensic Laboratory through the learned Judicial Magistrate and he received Ex.P.8, the Chemical Report and Ex.P.9, the Serology Report. P.W.16 recorded the statements of Andi, Malaichamy, Kallanai, Easwaran, Pandi, Nagaraj, Muthu, Muthuramar and Neelamegam. On 25.10.2001, at about 7.00 A.M., he arrested the accused Iyyadurai and also arrested the accused Akkiniraj, Vellaichamy, Easwaran and Jeeva, who were surrendered voluntarily before the Silaiman Police Station through their advocate and remanded all the accused to judicial custody.
(h) Then, further investigation was taken up by P.W.17, Natarangan. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.11 to 13 and on 10.12.2001, he recorded the statements of doctors. After the completion of his investigation, he filed a Charge Sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 304(2) I.P.C.
3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked and M.Os.1 to 4 were produced. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence.
4. On consideration of the materials on record, learned Additional Sessions District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai found that the prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, acquitted the accused from all the charges.
5. Challenging the said judgment, the revision has been filed by the petitioner/P.W.1.
6. The Point for determination is:
Whether the Prosecution proved his case beyond reasonable doubt? Point:
P.W.1 was the resident of Thirumanambathi. He was an agriculturist. P.W.2 is his wife. He has got four daughters and two sons. Due to election enmity, one of his sons, Dhanasekaran was killed. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was committed due to election dispute. First accused belonging to D.M.K. Party and one Katherammal belonging to A.D.M.K.Party. P.W.1 worked for Katherammal. So, there was enmity between the accused and the complainant party. The learned trial Judge found that there was no motive. It is clear that both of them belonging to different party and P.W.1 worked for Katherammal. Naturally, there should be difference of opinion between the parties. Hence there may be a motive. So finding of the trial Court that there is no motive between the parties is not correct.
(ii) Ex.P.1 is the complaint. According to the prosecution, it was given by P.W.1 to P.W.11, Head Constable. P.W.11 stated that on 24.10.2001, when he was the in charge of Silaiman Police Station, P.W.1, appeared before him and gave the complaint Ex.P.1. But Ex.P.1, the complaint was not written by P.W.1.
P.W.1 also asserted specifically Ex.P.1 was not written by him Admittedly, P.W.1 gave an another complaint written by him. He deposed as follows:
g[fhh; m.rh.M.1 vd;dhy; vGjg;gltpy;iy. ehd; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; vd; ifg;gl xU g[fhh; vGjpf; bfhLj;njd;.
So, Ex.P.1 is not given by him. When the complaint was not given by P.W.1, the prosecution cannot rely upon the complaint Ex.P.1. So, there is a doubt about Ex.P.1 complaint.
(iii) In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 is claimed that he was attacked by A6, A3 and A4.
But in his evidence, he stated that he was attacked by A2, A4 and 10. In his complaint, he stated that his wife was attacked by A1, A8 and A9. But, in his evidence he stated that she was attacked by A1, A8 and A11. P.W.2 Stated that her husband was attacked by A3, A4 and A6 as stated in Ex.P.1. She also stated that she was attacked by A1, A8 and A11 with aruval. But, P.W.1 stated in his evidence that she was attacked by A1, A8 and A11 with stick and stone. So far as the deceased is concerned, in First Information Report, it is shown that he was attacked by A2, A5, A7, A9 and A10. But, P.W.1 stated in his evidence that deceased Dhanasekaran was attacked by A2, A3, A4, A6, A10 and A11 with stone and his wife, P.W.2 stated in her evidence that her son was attacked by A2, A5, A7, A9 and A10 as stated in First Information Report. So the case of prosecution was not supported by evidence P.Ws.1,2 and Ex.P.1. There is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.P.1. The trial Court clearly stated in the judgment about the contradiction. Even, P.W.1 was not prepared to support the case of prosecution.
(iii) Further, it is the case of P.W.1 in the complaint, that the deceased sustained injury due to attack on the chest and private parts of the victim. The doctor P.W.14, who conducted Post-mortem, he found following injuries on the body of deceased Dhanasekaran.
"Haematoma in the mid-occipital region 6 cm x 4 cm x 1 cm in the scalp.
On dissection of Scalp, Skull and dura:
Contusion in the scalp 6cm x 4 cm on the mid-occipital region. Crack fracture in the mid occipital region 6 cm in length. Subdural haematoma about 100 grams noted over the occipital lobe. Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both the cerebral hemispheres.
It is seen that there was no injury on the chest and private parts. So, the stand of the prosecution that the victim was attacked in chest and private parts of the victim falls to the ground. Even P.W.2 stated that the accused A1, A8 and A11 attacked with aruval and thereby caused bleeding and she examined by P.W.10, Dr.Pounraj and he found following injuries on her body.
1. Contusion over right thigh 3" x 1"
2. Contusion over left shoulder 2" x 1"
He was not able to found any bleeding. She claimed that she was attacked with aruval. But the evidence of P.W.10 doctor would show that she sustained only contusion. If any one attacked with aruval certainly there will be a cut injury. So, there is contradiction in evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.l0 doctor. The above contradiction was not explained by the prosecution properly.
(iv) P.W.14 stated that there was no cut injury on the body of deceased.
He also stated that there was no injury on chest and stomach. But, the prosecution claimed that aruval was used. But, at the same time, aruval was not recovered. So, the case of prosecution that there was a cut injury on the body of the deceased seems to be an artificial.
(v) P.Ws.6 and 7 are the Son-in-laws of P.W.1. They are interested witnesses. They are close relatives of P.W.1. On careful consideration, it is clear that their evidence was not trustworthy. P.W.1 claimed that nearly 105 tiles were broken. But, investigating officer did not recover any broken tiles. So, his version that the tiles were broken is not acceptable. Their evidence would show that 30 persons came along with the accused. But 30 persons were not charge sheeted for the offence. So, this would also affect the case of prosecution.
(vi) The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there was a delay in despatching the alleged First Information Report to Court. Ex.P.1 was received by P.W.11 on 24.10.2001 at about 8.00 A.M. and he despatched the same through P.W.12. P.W.12, Nagendran, Grade I Police constable claimed that he received the express First Information Report at about 10.30 A.M. and handed over the same to Court. The distance between Silaiman Police Station and Court is only 10 kilometers. According to his evidence, frequent transport facility is available from Silaman Police Station to Court. But, First Information Report reached to Court only at 4.00 P.M. If really, First Information Report was handed over at 10.30 A.M., it would not take much time to reach the Court. But it was reached only at 4.00 P.M. So, it creates a suspicion in despatching of the express First Information Report. It would also go to the root of the case of prosecution.
(vii) On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, it is clear even the prosecution witness not speaking truth and the evidence is not reliable. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reason to rejecting the case of prosecution in his judgment clearly. I find there is no reason to differ with the findings of the trial Court.
In the result, the revision is failed and accordingly dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai made in S.C.No.302 of 2003 dated 16.03.2004 isonfirmed and all the accused are acquitted from all the charges. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled.
arul To
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.