Madras High Court
Balakrishna Reddy vs / on 3 July, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :25.06.2024
Pronounced on :03.07.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115 of 2019
Crl.A.No.29 of 2019:
Balakrishna Reddy .. Appellant/Accused No.72
/versus/
State of Tamil Nadu
represented by
The Inspector of Police
Bagalur. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment passed by the
learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Related to Elected
Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil
Nadu, Chennai, in S.C.No.505 of 2018, vide, order dated 07.01.2019 and
set aside the same and consequently acquit the appellant.
For Appellant :Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for
Mr.Adithya Reddy
For Respondent :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
Crl.A.No.62 of 2019:
1.Chandrasekarareddy
2.Ramamoorthyreddy @ Venugopal Reddy
3.Balakrishnan
4.Madesh
5.Abbaiya
6.Abbaiya
7.Santhosh
8.Babu
9.Krishnappa
10.Ganesh
11.Narasimma Reddy
12.Krishnan
13.Rajappa ..Appellants/Accused
/versus/
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated
07.01.2019 passed in S.C.No.505 of 2018 by the Special Court for Cases
related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative
Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and set aside the same.
For Appellants :Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel for
M/s.A.Jagadeeswari
A2,A4,A10,A20,A44 and A76
2/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
Mr.Abdul Kumar Rajarathinam,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.Ashok Kumar A7 & A21
Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.Rabu Manohar, A17 and A18
For Respondent :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
Crl.A.No77 of 2019:
C.V.Venkataramanappa .. Appellant/Accused No.43
/versus/
The State
Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Bagalur Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.505 of 2018 dated
07.01.2019 on the file of the Special Court of Cases related to Elected
Members of parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil
Nadu at Chennai by allowing the present Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondent :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
---------
3/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
Crl.A.No.115 of 2019:
M.Govindareddy .. Appellant/Accused No.1
/versus/
The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment passed by the
learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Related to Elected
Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil
Nadu, Chennai, in S.C.No.505 of 2018, vide order dated 07.01.2019, set
aside the same and consequently acquit the appellant.
For Appellant :Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for
Dr.G.Babu
For Respondent :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)
-----------
4/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
The batch of criminal appeals is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, rendered on 07.01.2019 in S.C.No.505 of 2018.
2. On 30.09.1998 between 06.00 p.m, to 08.00 p.m., on the Malur to Hosur Main Road at Sarjapuram Junction Road and near Bagalur Bus Stand, about 150 persons assembled to protest registering of a false case against one Govinda Reddy in Crime No.253 of 1998. The said Govinda Reddy is the first accused in this case.
3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that Govinda Reddy, who belongs to a Political Party, along with his followers gathered near Bagalur Bus Stand unlawfully to protest against police. Some of them were carrying weapons with a common object to use force and violence. Pursuant to the common object, they restrained vehicular movement and caused traffic disturbance. When the Inspector of Police requested the 5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 crowd to disburse, they refused and started raising slogan. They pelted stones at the Police Officials as well as the vehicles passing through. In the course of the said action, three policemen were sustained grevious injury and few more sustained simple injuries. The Trax jeep of the police department was set at fire and a two wheeler owned by a private person was damaged, besides three public transport buses.
4. R.Sekar, Sub Inspector of Police, is the informant in this case. Based on his information, First Information Report in Crime No.340 of 1998 came to be registered against 25 persons and others. On completion of investigation, Final Report filed and taken on file as S.C.No.258 of 2002 (Sessions Court, Krishnagiri). Later, on constitution of Special Court for the cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly(MPs &MLAs), it was transferred to the Special Court at Chennai and renumbered as S.C.No.505 of 2018.
5. At the time of framing charges, 100 persons were named as accused and the following charges were framed. 6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 1st Charge: Against A2, A3, A4 to A16 and A18 to A100 for the offence under Section 147 of IPC for forming unlawful assembly and created riot.
2nd Charge: Against A1, A3 and A17 for the offence under Section 148 of IPC for gathered unlawfully with deadly weapons.
3rd Charge: Against A1 to A100 for the offence under Section 341 of IPC for wrongfully restrained the police officials and other vehicles to pass through the occurrence place.
4th Charge: Against A1 and A17 for the offence under Section 333 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Sundara rajan, A.R.Grade-I PC with iron rod.
5th Charge: Against A18, A21 and A24 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Ramakrishnan, Inspector of Police.
6th Charge: Against A1,A3, A6, A15, A16 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Sekar, Sub Inspector with hands and stones.
7th Charge: Against A4 and A5 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Palani, A.R.P.C. with stones and wooden 7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 log.
8th Charge:Against A7, A8,A9 and A20 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Loganathan, A.R. Grade-I, PC with stones and wooden log.
9th Charge:Against A10 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Madhu, A.R.P.C., with stones.
10th Charge:Against A11 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Kaliappan, A.R.Grade-I, P.C with stones.
11th Charge:Against A2 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Sundararajan, A.R.P.C., with stones.
12th Charge:Against A12 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Sathasivam, A.R.P.C., with wooden log.
13th Charge:Against A13, A14, A16 and A19 for the offence under Section 332 of IPC for causing hurt to Sampath, A.R.P.C., with wooden log.
14th Charge:Against A3 for the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prvention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992, for 8/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 damaging Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 01 D 6479 with stones.
15th Charge: Against A1 to A100 for the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prvention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992, for damaging Government Buses bearing Reg.Nos.TN 29 N 0534, TN 29 N 0432, TN 29 N 0941, TN 29 N 0709 and TN 29 N 1009 with steel rod and wooden log.
16th Charge: Against A1 and A17 for the offence under Sections 4 of 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prvention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992, for setting fire to trax police jeep bearing Reg.No.TN 29 G 0043.
6. On the side of the prosecution, 28 witnesses, 15 exhibits and 1 material object relied to prove the charges mentioned above.
7. The trial Court had spilt up the case against six accused, who were absconding during pendency of the trial and issued NBW against them. The spilt up case against them is numbered as S.C.No.524 of 2018. Pending trial, 21 of them died. As against the remaining accused, the 9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 trial Court has held them guilty of respective charges and imposed sentence.
8. The trial Court in its judgment, had retained the names of the accused, who were dead and NBW pending and has given ranking as found in the final report. Therefore, though the charges were framed against 100 accused, in the judgment, we finds, names of 108 accused out of which 21 were shown as dead and 6 were shown as absconding and NBW pending.
9. After reassigning the ranking of the accused, the trial Court has sentenced them as below:-
Sl. Rank of Convicted under Sentence imposed by the trial Court No. the Section by the accused trial Court
1. A1 Under Section 148 To undergo 2 years imprisonment and to IPC, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 2 months SI Under Section 341 To undergo 1 month imprisonment.
IPC Under Section 333 To undergo 2 years imprisonment and to IPC pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 2 months SI Under Section 332 To undergo 1 year imprisonment and to pay IPC a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 10/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 Sl. Rank of Convicted under Sentence imposed by the trial Court No. the Section by the accused trial Court month SI Under Section 3 of To undergo 3 years imprisonment and to TNPPD Act pay a fine of Rs.10000/- in default to undergo 2 months SI Under Section 4 of To undergo 5 years RI and to pay a fine of TNPPDL Act Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo 3 months SI (total fine Rs.37,000
2. A2,A7,A17 Under Section 147 To undergo 1 year imprisonment each and A18A25,A4 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to 3,A44, undergo 1 month SI each.
A67,A72,A Under Section 341 To undergo 1 month imprisonment each. 76 of IPC Under Section 3 of To undergo 3 years imprisonment each, and TNPPDL Act to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo 2 months SI each.
(Total fine of Rs.1,05,000/-_
3. A4 Under Section 147 To undergo 1 year Imprisonment and to pay of IPC fine of Rs.500/- in default 1 month SI Under Section 148 To undergo 2 years Imprisonment and to of IPC pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default 2 months SI Under Section 341 To undergo 1 month Imprisonment of IPC Under Section 332 To undergo 1 year Imprisonment and to pay of IPC fine of Rs.1000/- in default 1 month SI Under Section 3 of To undergo 3 years Imprisonment and to TNPPDL Act pay fine of Rs.10000/- in default 2 months SI (Total fine amount Rs.12,500/-)
4. A10,A20, Under Section To undergo 1 year imprisonment each and A24 147 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo 1 month SI each.
5. A10 Under Section 341 To undergo 1 month Imprisonment of IPC 11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 Sl. Rank of Convicted under Sentence imposed by the trial Court No. the Section by the accused trial Court
6. A10,A20,A Under Section 332 To undergo 1 year Imprisonment each and 24 of IPC to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default 1 month SI each Under Section 3 of To undergo 3 years Imprisonment each and TNPPDL Act to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each in default 2 months SI each (Total fine amount Rs.34,500/-)
7. A21 Under Section 147 To undergo 1 year imprisonment and to pay of IPC a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 1 month SI.
Under Section 148 To undergo 2 years imprisonment and to of IPC pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months SI.
Under Section 341 To undergo 1 month Imprisonment of IPC Under Section 333 To undergo 2 years imprisonment and to of IPC pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months SI.
Under Section 3 of To undergo 3 years Imprisonment and to TNPPDL Act pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default 3 months SI (Total fine amount Rs.16,500/-)
10. The charges against 21 accused, who died pending trial recorded as abated. The trial Court has also ordered, the period of 12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 sentence shall run concurrently.
11. The charges under Sections 147,148,341,332,333 IPC & 3 of TNPPDL Act as against the accused A5,A8,A9,A12,A13,A16, A19,A22,A23,A26,A27,A28,A29,A31,A32,A33,A34,A35,A38,A40,A41, A42,A45,A46,A48,A49,A50,A52,A53,A57,A58,A59,A60,A61,A62,A63, A64,A66,A69,A70,A71,A74,A75,A77,A79,A80,A81,A83,A84,A85,A86, A90,A92,A93,A94,A99,A100,A101,A102,A103,A104,A105,A106,A107 and A108 were not proved and acquitted under Section 253(1) of Cr.P.C.
1.Crl.A.No.29 of 2019 filed by Balakrishna Reddy (Accused No.72)
2.Crl.A.No.62 of 2019 filed by A2,A4,A7,A10,A17,A18, A20,A21, A24,A25,A44,A67 and A76.
3.Crl.A.No.77 of 2019 filed by C.V.Venkataramanappa (A43)
4.Crl.A.No.115 of 2019 filed by M.Govindareddy(A1)
12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, 13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 challenging the judgment, had pointed out certain inherent defects in the prosecution case, which according to him renders the judgment of the trial Court bad and liable to be set aside.
13. According to the learned Senior Counsels, on 30.09.1998, it was a peaceful agitation by the members of the particular political party as against the police for their inaction to curb illicit arrack which has led to the death of about 50 persons. The peaceful protest was converted into violence only after the arrival of the team of police at the instance of Bagalur DSP. Though the prosecution had alleged that the members of the assemble were carrying iron rods, stones, wooden logs, etc., nothing was recovered from them and produced before the Court to attract offence under Section 148 of IPC. To attract the offence under Section 333 of IPC the prosecution ought to have proved beyond doubt that Sampath, A.R.P.C., Sundararaj, (Gr.I) A.R.P.C., sustained grievous injury. In the absence of proper medical record, merely based on the wound certificates, which is not supported by the evidence of Doctor, who treated the witnesses, the charge under Section 333 of IPC, cannot be held to have 14/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 been proved.
14. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, more than 115 persons were gathered with plastic buckets, lorry tubes, iron rods and other deadly weapons etc. The observation mahazar marked as Ex.P2, shows presence of certain materials on the road near the scene of occurrence. They were neither seized nor produced before the Court to prove that the members of the peaceful protest had the common object to cause disturbance to the public peace or had any other criminal intention to attract offence under Section 147 of IPC.
15. Referring the evidence of PW-1, the informant and other witnesses, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is evident that on the instruction of DSP, Bagalur, a team of police went to the site of peaceful protest and only after their arrival the situation turned riotous. There is no evidence to show that the public were prevented to reach the spot due to traffic block. If really, there was traffic block and disturbance, the police team could not have reached the spot in their jeep. The case of 15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 the prosecution is that the jeep in which PW-1 and others went to the spot was burnt by the mob on the instance of A1. There is no evidence to show that M.O.1 the burnt jeep belongs to the police department and it bears Reg.No.TN29G 0043. The admitted case of the prosecution is that there is no chassis number or engine number in the said jeep. No explanation given by the prosecution how the police vehicle had no chassis number and engine number for identification.
16. The learned Senior Counsels also emphasis that there was no identification parade of the suspected person conducted. After 6 years of the incident, the witnesses were examined and the official witnesses alone had identified the few accused persons among the hundred accused and it is highly improbable when the First Information Report was only against 25 named persons and others. The police witnesses able to identify the assailants after 6 years.
17. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that Pw-1 to Pw-11 and PW-21 are the police 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 officials. The occurrence took place near Bagalur Bus Stand. The members of the unlawful assembly, who all gathered under the guise of protesting the inaction of the police, placed plastic pots, lorry tubes in the middle of the road and raised slogan. They also obstructed traffic. When PW-1 requested A1 and others to disburse, A1 got hold of PW-1 shirt and tried to snatch the shoulder stars and also, fisted PW-1 on his chest. A1 instigated the mob to attack PW-1 and on his instigation, the brother of A1 attacked PW-1 with iron rod. The other accused Madesh(A10), Sathosh (A20) attacked PW-1 with stones. PW-1 and other injured police men went to the Hosur Hospital and got treatment. The wound certificate of PW-1 marked as Ex.P5 and the nature of the injury is spoken by PW- 22 Dr.Navaneethan. As per the wound certificate, PW-1 has sustained six injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a day and discharged after getting treatment for the injuries which has certified as simple in nature by the Doctor.
18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State further submitted that the other witnesses like Loganathan (PW- 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
21),Sampath (PW-8), Sundararaj (PW-6), Madu(PW-5), Sathasivam (PW-10), Ramakrishnan(PW-2), Kaliappan (PW-9), Palani(PW-7) had spoken about the overtact of the respective accused. They sustained injuries, which are supported by the wound certificates and the opinion of the Doctor. Therefore, prayed that the omission on the part of the police to conduct identification parade during the course of investigation or omission to recover stones and iron rods or failure to examine the Doctor, who had treated the injured witnesses cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.
19. Regarding the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Balakrishnan(A72), as per the judgment that there is misidentification of the accused person. The charge framed on 12.03.2003 naming 100 persons as accused, in which the 4 th accused is Balakrishnan and 65th accused is Balakrishna Reddy. The witness had mentioned only Balakrishnan and not Balakrishna Reddy. Therefore, A72 Balakrishna Reddy cannot be convicted when there is no proper identification of the witness.
18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
20. For this argument the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that while recording the testimony of PW- 11(Dhamodharan), Grade I PC Constable who went to the spot along with AR police on the instruction of DSP, had identified A72 as Balakrishnan and the Court has recorded the name with ranking. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the identity of the appellant in Crl.A.No.29 of 2018 though the witness has not mentioned about the suffix “Reddy” to the name “Balakrishnan”.
21. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records and impugned judgment.
22. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.1998 at about 05.30 p.m., PW-1 Mr.Sekar, Sub Inspector of Police, on receiving information that Govinda Reddy along with 24 named persons and the other unnamed persons had gathered near Sarjapuram Junction Road near Bagalur Bus Stand and caused hindrance to the traffic by keeping 19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 empty plastic pots and tubes, had gone to the spot and requested to disburse. Since they refused to disburse, PW-1 has informed the higher officials to send reinforcement. Accordingly, when the Inspector of Police, Ramakrishnan (PW-2) along with his team arrived to the spot, the accused persons had pelted stones, burnt police jeep and damaged the public property.
23. The specific case of the prosecution is that PW-1 came to the spot in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No. TN 01 D 6479 owned by his brother and that two wheeler was damaged by the members of the unlawful assembly. The said two wheeler not produced before the Court. The owner of the two wheeler also not examined. The prosecution rely upon damage certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is marked as Ex.P13 which speaks about the damage caused to the two wheeler bearing Reg.No. TN 01 D 6479. This certificate is not the proof for the charge against A3 for damaging the two wheeler. Similarly, the charge of damaging the public property namely, Government buses and the trax jeep also, not been supported by reliable and admissible 20/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 evidence.
24. As far as the 16th charge of burning of the Trax Jeep, the prosecution has relied upon M.O.1, the burnt jeep and the valuation certificate given by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The observation mahazar marked as Ex.P2 indicates that the jeep was near the scene of occurrence. Whereas PW-2(Ramakrishnan) Inspector of Police, who had gone to the scene of occurrence in that jeep along with others had deposed that since there was traffic jam on the Bagalur-Hosur Road, they parked the jeep at a distance and then went to the spot by walk. He has further stated that the jeep which was parked 400 feet away was set to fire by the group.
25. PW-3 (Rajasekaran) Grade-I, PC., was the member of the reinforcement team accompanied PW-2. PW-3 admits that at the time of occurrence along with the members of the protest party the public were also present and he was not able to identify, who had committed the overtact. In the cross examination, he says there were about 500 persons 21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 gathered in the spot and he has identified A1 as a person, who set the jeep at fire. Whereas, PW-2 and PW-1 had not implicated A1. For burning the jeep they attributed this overtact to the crowd, who were accompanying A1.
26. There is a grave doubt, whether M.O.1 jeep was set at fire by the mob as alleged by the prosecution. The identity of M.O.1 to that of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 29G 0043 is highly doubtful. The material object is correlated with its registration number by document or engine number or chassis number. The ownership of the vehicle also not proved by the record.
27. The exaggeration in the prosecution case could be easily seen from the non production of the above said material evidence for appreciation and also failure to produce the alleged materials like, empty plastic pots, lorry tubes, stones, iron rods etc, which have been mentioned in the First Information Report and in the statements of the witnesses besides the observation mahazar. It is noted by the Investigating Officer 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 that these materials were lying in the scene of crime. When he visited the spot after the incident, but they were not recovered. The incriminating evidence against the accused persons are only the oral evidence of injured witnesses, who are police personnels and they have interest in the out come of the prosecution case. Their testimony regarding the injuries not been corroborated by reliable medical evidence. The failure to examine the Doctor, who had treated them is fatal to the case of the prosecution, since the wound certificates does not reflect the true nature of the injury sustained. To opine that PW-1 sustained injuries which are grevious in nature, the Doctor (PW-22), who has given wound certificates, had not produced any evidence like, X-ray, or treatment particulars to cover those injuries under the definition of grievous hurt. Even to take it as simple hurt, the prosecution evidence is short of proof.
28. In the light of the above failure, the misidentification of the accused persons gains significance. Particularly, when in the charge sheet, there are two accused in the name of Bala Krishnan, one shows as 4th accused and another one named Balakrishna Reddy shows as 65 th 23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 accused, later, on rearranging the rank of Balakrishnan, S/o Navanithan as 7th accused, Balakrishnan Reddy, S/o Pappi Reddy as 72th accused in the judgment, PW-11, who speaks about the injury and overtact of one Balakrishnan is not certain about who that Balakrishnan is. Though in the deposition the ranking of Balakrishnan is mentioned, it is highly doubtful whether the witness was aware of the ranking and the Court had rearranged the ranking of the accused persons.
29. From the records, this Court finds only at the time of rendering the judgment, the trial Court has made all efforts to reconcile the fact of death of few accused and absconding of few accused to rearrange the ranking of the accused for the sake of convenience. While so, even without conducting identification parade, the case was registered against 25 named accused and few unnamed accused. Later, about 108 persons were arrayed as accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 332 and 333 of IPC.
30. With bereft of material facts to prove the charges the 24/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 prosecution has proceeded with the trial. The trial Court ought to have looked at the material evidence placed against the accused persons, which stands without any corroboration about the identity of the accused persons. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of interested witnesses namely, the police officials.
31. This is the case where the member of the political party gathered in the public to protest against the inaction of the police in controlling the illicit arrack. This was a spontaneous reaction, when 50 persons died consuming illicit arrack. Since the protest was against the police for their inaction, the peaceful protest turned into a riot, after the arrival of PW-2 who had gone to the spot at the instance of DSP, Bagalur.
32. According to the prosecution, about 9 to 10 persons went in the Trax Jeep to the spot at the instance of the DSP. The failure to produce the log book of the vehicle and the contradiction between the 25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 witnesses regarding the place, where they parked the vehicle also renders the prosecution case highly unbelievable. Once the theory of the prosecution about burning the police jeep is unbelievable, and there is no other evidence on the side of the prosecution to convict the appellants for the offences under Sections 3 or 4 of the TNPPDL Act, the case of the prosecution has to fall in toto.
33. As pointed out earlier, since the prosecution fails to recover any other material object to prove that some of the members of the assembly were armed with weapon, the charge under Section 148 of IPC also can not be held proved. Similarly, regarding hurt and grievous hurt alleged to have been sustained by PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-21, the prosecution has tried to prove the charge under Sections 332 and 333 of IPC through wound certificate. The wound certificates were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P11, which are spoken by PW-22 Dr.Navaneethan. In the cross examination of PW-22, it has been elucidated that Ex.P3 to Ex.P11 are not the extracts of Accident Register. PW-22 has spoken about the injuries based on the records and he is not 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 the doctor, who has treated the injured witnesses.
34. To prove the charges under Sections 332 and 333 of IPC, the prosecution relies upon the ocular evidence of injured witnesses viz., the police personnels and PW-22 Dr.Navaneethan, who had spoken about the wound certificates marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P11. Unfortunately, these wound certificates were not issued by PW-22. It was issued by one Raja Sripriyadharshini. According to this witness (PW-22), the said Raja Sripriyadharshini being in Foreign has not come to the Court to depose about the wound certificates based on the records. He has not even identified the hand writing and signature of Raja Sripriyadharshini. Therefore, his competency to speak about the wound certificates prepared by Raja Sripriyadharshini is highly doubtful.
35. Moreover the Accident Register maintained in the hospital at the time of admitting the patient is not produced by the prosecution. There is a serious doubt about the time of their admission, nature of 27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 treatment and nature of wound. When the Doctor, who has treated them had not been examined, the prosecution should have come out with proper explanation and should have produced both the Accident Register along with wound certificates for the Court to appreciate the evidential value of this document. By screening the Accident Register and not examining the person, who has issued it, also competent to speak about the wound certificates. The evidence of PW-22 has to be ignored.
36. As a result, on cumulative assessment of the evidence, this Court finds several lacuna in the prosecution case and those lacuna enures benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The trial Court unfortunately had failed to note that when the prosecution is unable to even ascertain the identity of the persons gathered for protest and formed unlawful assembly, convicted them at random based on the weak evidence and uncorroborated evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. All the accused persons are acquitted of their charges as not proved beyond doubt.
28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
37. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed in S.C.No.505 of 2018 by the Special Court for Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is hereby set aside. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Bail bond if any executed by the appellants stands cancelled. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith.
03.07.2024 Index:yes Internet:yes/no Speaking order:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no ari To
1.Special Judge, Special Court for Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019
2.The Inspector of Police, Bagalur.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 30/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115of 2019 Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.29,62,77 and 115 of 2019 03.07.2024 31/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis