Madras High Court
Devarajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 January, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.1563 of 2003 Devarajan ... Appellant/P.W.1/P.W.1 Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Rangam Police Station, Sri Rangam. (Crime No.203 of 2000) 2.Premkumari 3.Karuppannan 4.Ponnusamy 5.Selvam @ Kabadi Selvam 6.Selvam @ Avankur Selvam @ Selvaraj ... Respondents/Appellants/A.1 to A.5 Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment, dated 09.09.2003 in C.A.No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Judge (Trichy), Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy, reversing the Judgment, dated 03.07.2002 in C.C.No.404 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Trichy. !For Appellant : Mr.M.Subash Babu ^For R ? 1 : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For RR 2 to 5 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan for M/s.Ajmal Associates :JUDGMENT
The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant/P.W.1 in C.C.No.404 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Trichy. The first respondent, on the basis of the complaint received from P.W.1/defacto complainant on 03.04.2000, has registered an F.I.R in Crime No.203 of 2000 against respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., with regard to the alleged abduction and causing injury to P.W.1/defacto complainant, on 27.03.2000.
2. The trial Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidences, has convicted A.1 to A.5 for the commission of offence under Section 147 I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also convicted them for the commission of offence under Section 365 I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. For the commission of offence under Section 323 I.P.C., A.2 & A.3 were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and for the commission of offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., the third accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The trial Court further directed the sentences of imprisonment imposed against the said accused shall run concurrently and also ordered set-off the period already undergone by the accused, under Section 428 Cr.P.C., vide Judgment, dated 03.07.2002.
3. The accused 1 to 5, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in the Judgment dated 03.07.2002 in C.C.No.404 of 2000, by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, preferred an appeal in C.A.No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Trichy and the lower Appellate Court, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2003 had set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellants therein/Accused 1 to 5 from the charges levelled against them giving 'benefit of doubt'. P.W.1/defacto complainant, aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded in favour of accused 1 to 5, has filed this Criminal Revision Case.
4. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and other materials available on record, discloses the following facts:-
5. According to P.W.1/defacto complainant, marriage was arranged for him and there was some impediment in conducting the marriage and to avoid the same, he was advised to go to Thiruvanaikovil Temple and perform Poojas and accordingly, on 27.03.2000, he went to Thiruvanaikovil Temple and after leaving the footwear in the shop of P.W.6, he went inside the Temple and came back. At that time, all the accused, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, had forcibly pushed P.W.1/defacto complainant into a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN 33-J-3777 (M.O.1) and asked him to marry the first accused/D.W.1 and when it was refused by him, he was repeatedly beaten and consequently, he sustained simple injury. Thereafter, the accused took P.W.1/defacto complainant to Palani and stayed with him in Kanjanayakkanpatti Choultry and once again the accused forced him to marry A.1/D.W.1. On 28.03.2000, they took him to a Perumal Temple on the way from Kolikaal Natham near Tiruchengodu and under the threat and coercion, they compelled him to marry A.1/D.W.1 and therefore, according to him, the accused have committed offences under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
6. P.W.15 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Jadharpalayam Police Station, Nammakkal District. On 28.03.2000 at about 04.00 p.m., while he was on duty, A.1/D.W.1, namely Premkumari daughter of Palaniappan, appeared before him and lodged a complaint. Based on which, he has registered the said complaint in the Community Service Register in C.S.R.No.16 of 2000 (Ex.P.5). When D.W.1 lodged a complaint, P.W.1/defacto complainant and about four or five persons, relatives of A.1/D.W.1, were present. Thereafter, P.W.15 sent an intimation to the parents of P.W.1/defacto complainant and in pursuance of the same, the father of P.W.1 and his relatives had come and both of them were enquired into. D.W.1/A.1 would state that P.W.1/defacto complainant had married her and on account of which, he was demanding dowry and he was ill-treating her. When P.W.15 had made an enquiry to P.W.1/defacto complainant, he stated that A.1 and other accused had forcibly took him in a car, beat him and they forced him to marry D.W.1/A.1. P.W.15, having considered the versions of both the parties, directed A.1/D.W.1 to lodge a complaint on the file of the Jurisdictional Police Station and also directed P.W.1/defacto complainant to lodge a complaint on the file of Srirengam Police Station with regard to the alleged abduction and ill-treatment. Subsequently, P.W.1/defacto complainant, on account of injuries sustained by him, got admitted himself in the Government Hospital, Nammakkal and after taking treatment and on feeling better, lodged a complaint on the file of Srirengam Police Station on 03.04.2000.
7. P.W.19, the Head Constable attached to Srirengam Police Station, on receipt of the complaint given by P.W.1/defacto complainant, has registered a case in Crime No.203 of 2000 for the commission of offence under Section 363 I.P.C and the F.I.R has been marked as Ex.P.8.
8. P.W.20, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R, took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the site of crime and in the presence of P.W.6 and one Mahalingam made an observation and prepared a mahazar and the same has been marked as Ex.P.9 and he has also prepared a rough sketch and the same has been marked as Ex.P.10. Thereafter, he examined P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.4, P.W.7 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.20 also learnt that all the accused surrendered before Court and got bail on 10.07.2000. On 25.08.2000, he went to Tiruchengodu, enquired P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.15, P.W.18, P.W.4 and also the Inspector of All Women Police Station and recorded their statements and seized some documents. On the same day, he proceeded to Paramathivelur Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.13, the Doctor who treated P.W.1, and also seized certain documents. On 10.10.2000 at about 08.00 a.m., near Alagiripuram check post, he seized Tata sumo car in the presence of P.W.5 and others and the seized Tata Sumo Car is marked as M.O.1. P.W.20 also enquired some other witnesses and recorded their statements and also seized the trip sheet pertaining to M.O.1. Thereafter, P.W.20 sent those documents to the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Form 90. After completion of investigation, P.W.20 filed a final report against A.1 for the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 363, 365 and 506(ii) I.P.C., against the second accused for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., against the third accused for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., against the fourth accused for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and against the fifth accused for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 363, 365, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The final report was taken on file by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy and the said Court has framed the charges as stated above and when all the accused were questioned, they pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them and prayed for trial of the case.
9. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, have examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and also marked M.O.1, Tata Sumo car.
10. All the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and they denied them as false.
11. On behalf of the accused, A.1, namely Premkumari was examined as D.W.1 and exhibits D.1 to D.6, which are letters said to have been written by P.W.1 to D.W.1, were marked.
12. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidences, has convicted and sentenced the accused vide Judgment, dated 03.07.2002 as stated above and aggrieved by the same, all the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.80 of 2002 before the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Trichy and the lower Appellate Court by giving 'benefit of doubt' has acquitted all the accused, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2003 and challenging the legality of the same, P.W.1/defacto complainant has filed the present revision.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant has made the following submissions.
14. P.W.1 was very categorical that on 27.03.2000, on coming out of Tiruvanaikovil Temple at about 11.00 a.m., he was forcibly pushed into M.O.1- car by all the accused and he was asked to marry accused No.1/D.W.1 and when he expressed his unwillingness, he was ill-treated and harrassed and due to extortion, physical and forceful threat, he exchanged garland with D.W.1/A.1. His testimony has been corroborated by other witnesses and also supported by medical evidence. It is further contended that though P.W.3, driver of the Tata Sumo Car in his chief examination has spoken about the abduction of the revision petitioner/P.W.1 and in fact he further deposed that he was threatened with dire consequences and two other persons, who were also present in the vehicle, had also attacked him and the said crucial testimony has been completely overlooked by the lower Appellate Court. By drawing the attention of the Court to the testimony of P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.7, the learned counsel would submit that though the witnesses turned hostile, their testimonies would reveal that on coming out of the Thiruvanaikovil Temple at about 11.00 a.m on 27.03.2000, P.W.1/defacto complainant was forcibly pushed into the car and therefore, the prosecution has proved the abduction of P.W.1/defacto complainant by the accused, but, however, the lower Appellate Court has completely ignored the said vital evidence.
15. The testimonies of relatives of P.W.1, including the father of P.W.1, namely P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.8 would disclose that A.1/D.W.1 has lodged a compliant on the file of the Jadharpalayam Police Station alleging dowry harrassment on the part of P.W.1/defacto complainant and in response to the same P.W.1/defacto complainant has stated that he was forcibly taken in a car and on the pretext of physical harm and criminal intimidation, he was forcibly married to A.1/D.W.1 and thus the testimonies of those witnesses are natural, cogent and trustworthy and corroborate with other evidence, but, on the other hand, the lower Appellate Court for the reasons best known to it, has not properly appreciated the same.
16. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the testimony of P.W.12, the photographer, who took photographs of P.W.1/defacto complainant at the time of alleged marriage of A.1/D.W.1 and after getting the photos and negatives, A.2 gave him Rs.250/- and thus, according to P.W.12, the marriage was forcible one and his testimony also corroborates the testimony of P.W.1 that such marriage took place forcibly, without his consent.
17. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that P.W.15 attached to Jadharpalayam Police Station has also deposed that on the basis of the complaint given by D.W.1/A.1, which was marked as Ex.P.4, the parents were summoned and both of them were enquired into and his testimony will also corroborate with P.W.1/defacto complainant, who, at the earliest point of time, has spoken about the abduction, his forcible marriage with A.1/D.W.1. But, without properly appreciating the same, the lower Appellate Court by placing great reliance on minor contradictions, had acquitted all the accused. The learned counsel would further submit that the injuries sustained by P.W.1/defacto complainant, during the course of abduction, forcible marriage, has also been amply established through the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.13 and the wound certificate issued by him, marked as Ex.P.4.
18. As regards the reason for the delay in lodging the complaint, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 got admitted in the hospital and after taking treatment, he took bed rest and subsequently lodged a complaint, based on which, Ex.P.8 came to be registered. Since the delay has been properly explained, the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court is per se unsustainable.
19. The sum and substance of the submission of the revision petitioner is that though there are certain discrepancies, those discrepancies are only trivial in nature and the lower Appellate Court has placed greater emphasis on such minor discrepancies and erroneously acquitted respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5. He would further add that the testimonies of material witnesses corroborate with each other and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court.
20. This Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who would submit that the State has not made any further challenge against the order of acquittal by the lower Appellate Court.
21. Per contra, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 would submit that though according to P.W.1, the occurrence took place in the presence of nearby shop keepers and they were examined, they have all turned hostile. He would add that admittedly, no identification parade was conducted to identify the accused, as it is vital to prove the prosecution case. That apart, the accused, on the basis of the complaint lodged by A.1/D.W.1 under Ex.P.5, were summoned to Jadharpalayam Police Station and were examined and according to P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.1/defacto complainant has stated about the abduction and forcible marriage and therefore, he was advised by him to lodge a complaint, on the file of the Jurisdictional Police Station. According to P.W.1, he went to the hospital and took treatment for one day, took bed rest for two more days and thereafter, chosen to lodge a complaint only on 03.04.2000 and the said delay has not been properly explained at all. He would further submit that the said delay in lodging the F.I.R has been rightly taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 that it is the testimony of the photographer, who took photographs, that P.W.1/defacto complainant and D.W.1/A.1 posed for photograph, but, admittedly, the Investigating Agency has not seized the photographs. Drawing the attention of the Court to the testimonies of the witnesses, namely, choultry keepers and the administrators of the Temple, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that their testimonies do not disclose that a forcible marriage took place on 28.03.2000.
22. In sum and substance, it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 that the lower Appellate Court, on an independent application of mind to the oral and documentary evidences, has rightly found that there are very many infirmities in the case projected by the prosecution and the said infirmities are very vital to shake the prosecution case and therefore, on due application of mind, the lower Appellate Court has rightly acquitted respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 by giving benefit of doubt and the power of this Court to interfere with the well considered findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, in exercising its power under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. In support of his contention, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 5 relied on the decision in Sheetala Prasad and others Vs. Sri Kant and another reported in AIR 2010 SC 1140.
23. This Court paid it's best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record as well as in the typed set of papers, which contain the depositions of prosecution witnesses as well as D.W.1.
24. According to the prosecution, occurrence took place on 27.03.2000 at about 11.00 a.m., wherein the defacto complainant, on coming out of Tiruvanaikovil Temple, was forcibly pushed inside M.O.1-car by all the accused and he was asked to marry A.1/D.W.1 and since he expressed his unwillingness and refused to do so, he was attacked and also criminally intimidated and kept forcibly in a Choultry near Palani against his wish and on the next day, he was taken to a Perumal Temple near Tiruchengodu and he was once again threatened, coupled with physical harm and therefore, he garlanded A.1/D.W.1.
25. This Court has gone through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
26. The testimony of P.W.1 would disclose that complaint was lodged by him, based on which the case was registered. The cross-examination of P.W.1 would disclose that on 27.03.2000, outsiders also stayed with other accused in the choultry near Palani and they did not do anything on hearing his words. He would further depose that from the place of his confinement, if alarm is raised, it could be heard from outside, but he did not raise any alarm and after examination, the Police let him free on 28.03.2000 and he proceeded to the hospital and got himself admitted and on 29.03.2000, he got discharged from the hospital and thereafter, on 03.04.2000, he lodged the complaint.
27. P.W.2 is not an eye witness and he has submitted about the investigation that took place on Jodharpalayam Police Station.
28. P.W.4 happened to be a chance witness and according to him, he went to worship the God at Thiruvanaikovil Temple and at about 11.30 a.m., four or five persons came in a Tata Sumo Car and forcibly pushed inside the car a person, who was standing nearby and the said persons also beat him and later he did not know what had happened later on and therefore, he was treated as hostile witness and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution.
29. P.W.6 was running a fruit stall in front of the Temple at the relevant point of time and around 11.00 a.m., or 12.00 noon, a person came to his shop and left his footwear and having darshan, he came to his shop for wearing footwear and at that time, he was forcibly pushed inside a car by four or five persons and he could identify P.W.1/defacto complainant and four or five days after, police came and examined him. Since P.W.6 did not give full support to the case of the prosecution, he was also treated as hostile witness and cross-examined. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 would depose that prior to the occurrence on 27.03.2000, he did not had any occasion to see P.W.1/defacto complainant and after the occurrence, for the first time, only in the Court, he saw P.W.1/defacto complainant. He would further submit that he was an accused in a murder case and got acquitted in it and with regard to the abduction of P.W.1/defacto complainant, he did not lodge any complaint and after four or five days, after the occurrence, he was examined by the Police.
30. P.W.7 was said to be a chance witness and had deposed that about 11.00 a.m., four or five persons forcibly pushed a person inside the car and he could identify the person, who has been pushed inside the car.
31. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5, admittedly P.W.20 did not conduct test identification parade, either to identify P.W.1/defacto complainant or the accused. As per the testimonies of the said witnesses, they had no occasion to have acquaintance either with P.W.1/defacto complainant or with the accused and therefore, conducting test identification parade assumes greater importance. Though the proceedings of test identification parade cannot be treated as substantive evidence, the fact remains that identification of P.W.1 and accused assumes great importance and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, test identification parade was not done. The testimonies of above said witnesses were also not categorical and in fact they did not identify P.W.1/defacto complainant when he was present in the Court nor identified by the Investigating Agency, which is the vital to their case. That apart, the driver of Tata Sumo car was examined as P.W.3 and according to him, the owner of the car, who was examined as P.W.16, asked him to drive the vehicle and in his chief examination, he has stated that the vehicle was parked in front of Tiruvanaikovil Temple and at that time, a boy and girl came out of the Temple and both of them were asked to board the vehicle and in the course of travel, the said boy was asked to marry A.1/D.W.1 and it was refused by him. P.W.3 would further depose that he was asked to drive the vehicle to Palani and when he refused, he was also beaten by two other persons in the said car. Further he did not go to hospital. once again, test identification parade was not conducted and admittedly P.W.3 did not identify either P.W.1/defacto complainant or the accused in the Court and therefore, his testimony is of no use to prosecution.
32. P.W.16, the owner of the vehicle was also examined and his attention was drawn to Ex.P.7-trip sheet and as per the trip sheet, the car ran for 115 kms and generally if it proceeds to Tiruchengodu to Trichy and thereafter, returned to Trichy total distance would be 250 kms, but however, the trip sheet shows the fact that the vehicle ran only for 115 kms. Therefore, the case projected by the prosecution that the accused was taken from Tiruchengodu to choultry near Palani from there, he was taken to Trichy, was not established by the prosecution and Ex.P.7-trip sheet does not support the version projected by the prosecution.
33. It is the testimony of P.W.1/defacto complainant that he was taken to choultry near Palani on 27.03.2000 night hours and was forced to stay in choultry against his wish. P.W.18 is the choultry keeper and he has turned hostile in toto. It is also the case of the defacto complainant that on the next day, he was taken to a Perumal Temple near Tiruchengodu, where he was forcibly married to A.1/D.W.1. P.W.17, the administrator of Perumal Temple in his chief-examination has stated that no marriage is used to take place in the Temple and no permission is granted to conduct the marriage ceremonies in the Temple. However, in the cross-examination, the photographs taken was shown, where he deposed, after perusal of the photographs, that the photographs were appear to have taken inside the Temple. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6/accused 1 to 5 photographs taken by P.W.12 were not marked and therefore, his evidence is also of no use to support the case of the prosecution that on 28.03.2000, P.W.1/defacto complainant was taken to Perumal Temple in Kolikal Temple and was forcibly married.
34. D.W.1/A.1 lodged a complaint on the file of the Jadharpallam Police Station and P.W.15, after enquiry, advised both the parties to lodge complaints on the file of respective Jurisdictional Police Station and P.W.1 did not lodge a complaint immediately and however got admitted in a Government hospital and after taking treatment for one day, according to him, he took to rest for two days in his home and thereafter, proceeded to Srirengam Police Station and lodged a complaint on 03.04.2000.
35. A perusal of the testimony of P.W.20, the Investigating Officer, would disclose that the delay in lodging the F.I.R for nearly five days has not been explained at all.
36. Though the delay in lodging the complaint is not per se fatal to the case, in the absence of any proper explanation, the delay in lodging the F.I.R assumes importance and since the delay has not been explained, in the considered opinion of the Court, the same is against the prosecution.
37. In Sheetala Prasad and others Vs. Sri Kant and another reported in AIR 2010 SC 1140, the scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction in a case of order of acquittal, came for consideration. In paragraph No.9, the Honourable Supreme Court of India observed as follows:-
?9. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub- section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or the appellate Court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered.?
38. This Court, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above said decision, has carefully scanned the additional typed set of papers and found the following infirmities:-
(i) The testimony of P.W.1 is not amply corroborated by testimonies of other witnesses, as pointed out in the earlier paragraphs.
(ii) The material witnesses, who were said to have been present in the scene of occurrence, have turned hostile and therefore their testimonies did not give support to the evidence of P.W.1/defacto complainant.
(iii) The driver of the vehicle also did not support the case of the prosecution and the trip sheet of the vehicle shows that the vehicle, ran only for 115 kms, whereas if the case of the prosecution is accepted, the vehicle would have run not less than 250 kms and this testimony did not support the testimony of P.W.1/defacto complainant and it was not helpful to the prosecution in any manner. The photographs taken by P.W.12, photographer, were not seized at all.
39. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture, admittedly, test identification parade was not conducted either to identify P.W.1 or the accused and the scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses would also disclose that they have also not identified either P.W.1/defacto complainant or the accused in the Court and the non-conducting of the test identification parade is very much fatal to the case projected by the prosecution. Moreover, the prosecution has miserably failed to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R and the testimony of P.W.1 is to the effect that after admitting himself in a hospital, as an in-patient, and he was taking rest for two days and subsequently, lodged a complaint on the file of Srirengam Police Station. Since the delay in lodging the F.I.R has not been properly explained, the same also goes against the version of the prosecution. This Court has also gone through the impugned Judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court after going through the oral and documentary evidences, has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court, on an independent appreciating evidence and in the light of the reasons assigned above in the earlier paragraphs, is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and finds no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the lower Appellate Court, for acquitting them.
40. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 09.09.2009 made in C.A.No.80 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Trichy).
Index :Yes/No 12.01.2015
Internet :Yes/No
ps
To
1.The Additional District cum Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2,
Trichy.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.3,
Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
ps
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1563 of 2003
12.01.2015