Madras High Court
Krishnasamy vs State Rep. By on 11 July, 2017
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C(MD).No.12 of 2007 Krishnasamy ... Petitioner/P.W-1 -Vs- 1.State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy District. .... Respondent/Complainant 2.P.Ravi (A-1) 3.T.Sengamalam (A-2) 4.T.Periasamy (A-3) 5.T.Manikandam (A-4) ... Respondents/Accused Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, call for entire records and set aside the judgment of acquitting the respondents No.2 to 5 herein from the charges against the accused vide judgment in S.C.No.235 of 2005, dated 18.08.2006 on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Trichy and convict the respondents 2 to 5 herein. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar ^For R1 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 to R5 : Mr.P.Andiraj for Mr.Kathiravan Ilamurugan :ORDER
Challenging the order of acquittal of the respondents 2 to 5, the present revision has been filed.
2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in this case. The respondents 2 to 5 are accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.235 of 2005, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. A-1 in this case stood charged for an offence under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. A-2 and A-3 stood charged for an offence under Sections 302 r/w 109 and 324 of I.P.C. A-4 stood charged for an offence under sections 294(b), 302 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The trial Court found the accused not guilty of any offence and acquitted all the accused. Now, challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
i)The petitioner/defacto complainant and the accused are living at Thaniyankudu at B.Mettur Village. A-1 and A-2 jointly purchased an agricultural land and they are cultivating the same. A-3 and A-4 are sons of A-2. Earlier, there was a dispute between the deceased Raju viz., father of the defacto complainant and accused regarding the fencing of the property.
On the date of occurrence viz., 19.12.2004, while A-4 was cutting the live fence in the agricultural land, the deceased Raju and the defacto complainant and his mother objected for it. Thereafter, at the instigation of A-4, A-1 attacked the deceased on his head and also attacked the injured witness (P.W.1) on the right front side of the head. A-3 attacked the deceased with aruval and caused injuries above the right eye-brow. A-2 attacked P.W.1 with a stick and caused injuries on his back side and A-3 attempted to assault P.W.1 and the said blow fell on the head of the first accused. When A-2 attempted to assault P.W.1, the said blow also fell on the head of the first accused. Then, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Thuraiyur and on the way, he succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, based on the statement given by P.W.1, a complaint has been registered by P.W.11-Inspector of Police, attached to Uppiliyapuram Police Station, in Cr.No.553 of 2004, under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of I.P.C and P.W.13 commenced the investigation and examined the witnesses.
ii)After completing the investigation, P.W.13, filed a final report against the accused under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 r/w 109 and 302 of I.P.C.
4.Based on the materials available on record, the trial Court framed charges, as detailed in the second paragraph of this order. On the side of the prosecution, in order to prove its case, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited and 8 material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, none of the witnesses were examined and no document was marked.
5.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Raju. P.W.1 is an injured witness and he has spoken vividly about the occurrence. P.W.2 is his mother, who was also present at the time of occurrence and also reiterated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3-Velu alias Palanivelu, was also working in the nearby lands at the time of occurrence. On seeing him, the accused 1 to 4 took the aruval and stick and ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.4-Ramanujam was the Village Administrative Officer, who had attested in the confession statement of A-4 (Ex.P.6). P.Ws.4 and 5 are witnesses to seizure and recovery of material objects. P.W.6 is also a witness to the arrest of A-1 and regarding the confession and recovery of M.O.1. According to P.W.7-doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Thuraiyur, he examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.10-Accident Register. P.W.8 is another doctor, who treated P.W.1 for his injuries and also conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and also gave an opinion that the death was due to the shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him on his head. P.W.9 is a Clerk working in the Magistrate Court. He sent the blood-stained materials for examination and P.W.10, the Head Constable, handed over the express F.I.R to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur. P.W.12-Sub Inspector of Police attached to Uppiliyapuram Police Station registered the complaint. P.W.13-Inspector of Police inspected the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P.20 -Observation mahazar and conducted investigation. He sent a requisition Ex.P.12 for conducting post mortem over the dead body through P.W.11-Sella Peruamal, Head Constable. After completing the investigation, he filed final report against the accused persons under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 109 and 302 of I.P.C.
6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same. However, the accused neither examined any evidence nor marked any documents. After considering all the materials available on record, the trial court acquitted all the accused. Now, challenging the order of acquittal, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.
7.I have heard Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Andiraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 and perused the records carefully.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though there are three witnesses to the occurrence, in which, P.W.1 is the injured witness, they have categorically stated that the accused has attacked the deceased as well as P.W.1. The court below, without any reason, disbelieved their evidence and acquitted all the accused. Apart from that, the motive for the occurrence is also clearly established by the prosecution. But the court below, without considering the same, acquitted the accused.
9.Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 submitted that the prosecution has totally suppressed the origin and genesis of the case. In the same occurrence, A-1 also suffered serious injuries. P.W.7-doctor speaks about the same. But the prosecution did not explain the injuries sustained by A-1. Apart from that, even as per P.W.1, after the occurrence, he straight away went to the respondent Police Station. Thereafter only, he went to the hospital. But the First Information Report given by P.W.1 was suppressed. It creates a further doubt in the case of the prosecution. Considering all the materials, the trial court acquitted all the accused. There is no reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment of the trial court.
10.I have considered the rival submissions.
11.Admittedly, the accused No.1 in this case has also suffered an injury. PW-7, the doctor, has also spoken about the injury sustained by A-1. He also issued a wound certificate Ex.P.11 stating that the injuries are grievous in nature. But the injury on the first accused has not been properly explained by the prosecution.
12.From the perusal of the records, it could be seen that the injury sustained by A-1 is serious in nature. But the respondent Police did not conduct investigation on the injury sustained by A-1. From the evidence of Investigating Officer, it could also be seen that he is fully aware of the injury sustained by A-1.
13.In the above circumstances, when the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused, it is only presumed that the prosecution witnesses are not true and the injuries probablize the plea taken by the accused. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394, has held as follows:-
?....where the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants?.
?... In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:
(1)that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version:
(2)that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3)that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.?
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.?.
14.In the instant case, the prosecution has suppressed the injury sustained by A-1, which only creates a doubt in the prosecution. Apart from that, even as per the evidence of P.W.1, after the occurrence, he took the deceased to the Police Station and given a complaint; thereafter only he has gone to the hospital. Hence, it is clear that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 was suppressed by the prosecution. Considering all these fact, the trial court acquitted all the accused.
15.In an appeal/revision against acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system is that every person accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly, if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
16.In the instant case, as already held, the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence and as truth is not before this Court, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, I find no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. In the above said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision fails and the same is deserves to be dismissed.
17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
To
1.The Principal District Sessions Judge, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, Uppiliyapuram Police Station, Trichy District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..