Madras High Court
Raja vs The State on 20 January, 2010
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.1.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.A.No.356 of 2003 1. Raja, S/o Krishnaswamy 2. Selvaraj, S/o Rengasamy .. Appellants Vs. The State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Perambalur. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.2.2003 in S.C.No.72 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, at Ariyalur. For appellants : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Vasudevan For respondent : Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side). JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.2.2003 in S.C.No.72 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, at Ariyalur, whereby the appellants/A.2 and A.3 were convicted for the offence under Section 347 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo five months' simple imprisonment, they were also convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment and they were also convicted for the offence under Section 463 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo four months' simple imprisonment. The sentences imposed on the appellants were directed to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the trial, A-1 died and so, the charges stood abated as far as A-1 was concerned. During the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the second appellant/A.3 died and so, the Criminal Appeal abates as far as the second appellant/A.3 is concerned.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(a) P.W.1 Devaki was residing at Ammapalayam Village in her own house and she was doing National Travels and Export Business. At that time, her Manager, one Swamipillai, has misappropriated the funds of Rs.4 lakhs. P.W.1 has to discharge the loan received by her. A portion of the house was rented out to P.W.6 Aranagarasan, Village Administrative Officer.
(b) On 23.8.1995 at about 10.30 a.m., when P.W.l, along with her son P.W.2 Saravanan, went to Ammapalayam and at about 12 noon, when she was at her house, A-1 to A-3 came in an Ambassador Car, bearing Registration No.TDG-4719 and entered into the house of P.W.1 and demanded Rs.2 lakhs. The accused wrongfully confined them into the house, locked the house and left the place with the key.
(c) On the very next day, i.e. on 24.8.1995 morning, A-1 to A-3, along with two/three persons, came there and forcibly took them to the Registration Department and they got Ex.P-2 sale agreement and with the knife point, got signatures of P.W.1 on the document, which was registered under threat and coercion. Then, after registration, the accused took them back to the house of P.W.1 and left the place.
(d) On 29.8.1995, P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint before the Superintendent of Police and on 30.8.1985, it has been forwarded to the concerned Police Station. P.W.7 Ramachandran, the Inspector of Police, received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.582 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 448, 363, 342, 347, 392, 397, 451 and 452 IPC and prepared Ex.P-3 F.I.R.
(e) Then P.W.7 Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-4 rough sketch. He examined witnesses--Kamala, Aranganathan, Devaraj, Kamal Mohideen, Arasappan and recorded their statements. He also examined the other witnesses. On 16.9.1995, he arrested A-1 at Perambalur North Madhavi Road and remanded him to judicial custody at 20.30 hours. A-2 and A-3 were also arrested. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 347, 395 and 397 IPC.
4. The trial Court, after posing the questions about the incriminating materials, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.
5. Earlier, charges were framed against A-1 for the offences under Sections 347, 395 and 397 IPC and as against the appellants/A.2 and A.3, for the offences under Sections 347 and 395 IPC. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the charges levelled against them, but they are guilty of the offences under Sections 347, 452 and 463 IPC and convicted and sentenced them thereunder, as stated above.
6. Assailing the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/A.2 and A.3 would contend that A-3 died during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Appeal against A-3 abates. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that the first appellant-A.2 is not guilty of the offences under Sections 347, 452 and 463 IPC, because, on the basis of the sole evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they were convicted and there was no independent witnesses. P.W.3 Devaraj, the neighbour of P.W.1 Devaki, turned hostile. P.W.6 V.A.O. who was the tenant in the house of P.W.1, also not supported the case of the prosecution. He also turned hostile. P.W.4 Kannan, the document writer of Ex.P-2 agreement and P.W.5 Chellapillai, the attestor of Ex.P-2 agreement, also have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, P.W.1 in her evidence during the course of cross-examination, fairly conceded that she demanded Rs.3 lakhs for the sale agreement, but the amount mentioned in the document was only Rs.2 lakhs, and so, she was not willing to sell the property to the accused. Hence, the trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 347, 452 and 463 IPC. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for acquittal of the accused.
7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Police, would contend that even though the charges have been levelled against the accused for the offences under Sections 347, 395 and 397 IPC, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 347, 452 and 463 IPC. The trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective. Even though P.Ws.1 and 2 are relatives, they are the victims in the case. Their evidence is natural and cogent and there is no reason for discarding their evidence. Learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
8. The point to be decided in this Criminal Appeal is as to whether there was delay in preferring the complaint.
9. Admittedly, on 23.8.1995 at about 12 noon, A.1 to A.3 alleged to have entered into the house of P.W.1 and threatened them and demanded Rs.2 lakhs due to them, and they unlawfully and wrongfully confined P.Ws.1 and 2 in their house and locked the house and left the place. Except the ipse-dixit of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the victims, no independent witness is available. P.W.3, the neighbour of P.W.1 and P.W.6 V.A.O., who was the tenant under P.W.1, did not support the case of the prosecution.
10. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Court to consider the character of P.W.1. P.W.1 in her evidence has fairly conceded that she was doing National Travel and Export Business during 1993-1994 at Trichy and at that time, her Manager, one Swamipillai, misappropriated nearly Rs.4 lakhs, and so, she was indebted to so many persons and then and there, she paid that amount. But the amount due to the accused is Rs.2 lakhs. In the above circumstances, she also fairly conceded that she has been facing criminal case. In the evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the accused demanded to execute the sale deed only for Rs.2 lakhs, but she demanded Rs.3 lakhs. While perusing Ex.P-2 sale agreement, it is seen that it is only sale agreement and not the sale deed. P.W.1 has fairly conceded that she has not given any objection or resistance to the Sub-Registrar while Ex.P-2 sale agreement was presented for registration.
11. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are respectively the document writer and attestor to Ex.P-2 sale agreement. They have not supported the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, Ex.P-2 document has been executed and registered on the same day, i.e. on 24.8.1995 and she has presented the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Trichy, only on 29.8.1995, which is evident from Ex.P-1 complaint. So, there was a delay of six days in preferring the complaint. The delay has not been properly explained. In a case of this nature, the delay plays vital role. So, non-explanation of the delay of six days in preferring the complaint, is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12. As already stated, for wrongful restrainment, P.Ws.3 and 6 have not supported the case. The evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy. In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that P.Ws.1 and 2 were wrongfully restrained by the accused on 23.8.1995.
13. Section 347 IPC reads as follows:
"Section 347 IPC: Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act:
Whoever wrongfully confines any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. So, the ingredients of Section 347 IPC for wrongful confinement to extract the property, construing the illegal activity, have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the first appellant-A.2 is entitled to be given "the benefit of doubt". So, the first appellant-A.2 is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 347 IPC.
15. A.2 was also found guilty of the offence under Section 452 IPC. Section 452 IPC reads as follows:
"Section 452 IPC: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint:
Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
16. As already discussed, except the ipse-dixit of P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. P.Ws.3 and 6 also turned hostile. There is no evidence to show that A-1 to A-3 trespassed into the house of P.W.l and after preparation to hurt them, assaulted them. Hence, the ingredients of Section 452 IPC also have not been proved by the prosecution. The first appellant-A.2 is also entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 452 IPC.
17. It is also appropriate to consider Section 463 IPC, which reads as follows:
"Section 463 IPC: Forgery:
Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
18. As per the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the document writer and attestor to the document, respectively, P.Ws.1 and 2 were alleged to have presented the papers before the Sub-Registrar. P.Ws.1 and 2 fairly conceded that they signed these papers and executed Ex.P-2 sale agreement. There is no evidence to show that Ex.P-2 sale agreement is a forged document. In this connection, it is appropriate to cull out the following portion of the evidence of P.W.1, who in her chief examination, has stated as follows:
@ ////// gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J brd;W vd;Dila tPl;il 2.00.000-? tpw;whw;nghy; gjpt[ bra;J bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W kpul;odhh;/ ehd; KoahJ vd;Wk;. U:/3 byl;rk; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ Kjy; vjphpa[k;. 2 vjphpfSk; fj;jp itj;J. kpul;o ifbaGj;J nghl brhd;dhh;fs;/ ifbaGj;J nghl;L. brl;oFsk;. rhh;g[ gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; gj;jpuj;jpy; ifbaGj;J th';fp gjpe;J bfhz;lhh;fs;/ /////@
19. So, the above evidence of P.W.1 clearly proves the execution of Ex.P-2 sale agreement by P.W.1 and that no forgery has been committed either by A-1 or A-2 and A-3 and so, the ingredients of Section 463 IPC also have not been made out. The trial Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P-2 sale agreement is a forged document. P.W.1 herself admitted the execution and registration of the said document, which was corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the document writer and attestor to the document, and so, I am of the opinion that the first appellant-A.2 is also not guilty of the offence under Section 463 IPC.
20. As narrated above, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the first appellant-A.2 is guilty of the offences under Sections 347, 452 and 463 IPC. "The benefit of doubt" has to be given to the first appellant/A.2 and he is entitled to be acquitted.
21. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(a) The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/A.2 are set aside.
(b) The first appellant/A.2 is acquitted.
(c) The bail bonds, if any executed by the first appellant/A.2 shall stand cancelled.
(d) The fine amounts, if paid by the first appellant/A.2 is ordered to be refunded.
(e) Since the second appellant/A.3 died during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Appeal abates as far as the second appellant/A.3 is concerned.
cs To
1. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariylaur.
2. The State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Perambalur.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras