Madras High Court
V.Palanivel vs State on 24 July, 2009
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:24.07.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2007
V.Palanivel ... Petitioner
vs.
1. State, rep. By the
Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirukoilur Police Station,
Tirukoilur.
2. Seniappan
3. Pandu ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order acquitting the accused/respondents 2 and 3 in C.C.No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For R1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.(crl.side)
-----
O R D E R
Animadverting upon the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur in C.C.No.85 of 2002, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against two accused, namely, Seviappan and Pandu for the offences under Sections 294, 324, 506(2) IPC on the main ground that owing to previous enmity, A1 and A2 in furtherance of their common intention, on 10.01.2001 at about 21.00 hrs in front of one Selvaraj Nadar grocery shop, Thirukovilur to Lalapettai road, Meyyur village, abused Palanivelu and his wife in filthy language and also attacked them, so to say, A1 attacked Palanivelu with a bill hook and A2 attacked the same Palanivelu with iron road and also intimidated him with dire consequences.
(b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted and during trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused.
3. Animadverting upon such acquittal, this revision has been focussed by the injured Palanivelu on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
The trial Court took serious note of certain minor contradictions and simply held that the prosecution case was not proved, ignoring even the medical evidence. The learned Magistrate was not right in referring to the deposition of P.W.1, as in his judgment he misconstrued P.W.1 as the injured witness, but it was only P.W.4 who was the injured witness. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of acquittal and to pass necessary orders.
4. Despite printing the names of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and R2 and R3/accused, none appeared.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), who would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity of non- application of law in analysing the evidence in rendering the judgment of acquittal in acquitting the accused.
7. A plain reading of the judgment of the lower Court coupled with the evidence available on record would exemplify and demonstrate, expatiate and display that the trial Court took into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW.1, Uttharan in his deposition would state simply as though the accused attacked Palanivelu by using bill hook and iron rod. But he did not state anything about the alleged intimidation held out by the accused as against P.W.2 Ramakrishnan. P.W.1 also has not narrated as to which accused used which weapon and how the injuries were inflicted. It is not a case where a group of people attacked another group, so that the eye witnesses might not be able to give a descriptive picture or narration about the facts. But in this case, only two accused are involved and P.W.1 could not fully narrate the incident and it is quite obvious from a plain reading of his deposition. P.W.2, Ramakrishnan was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor as he pleaded ignorance about the occurrence. P.W.3, Selvaraj also was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. P.W.4, Palanivelu the injured witness in his deposition, as correctly pointed out by the learned Magistrate narrated as though A2 attacked him with bill hook and A1 attacked him with iron rod. This narration is quite antithetical to the prosecution description as according to the prosecution, it was A1 who used the bill hook and A2 used iron rod. As such, the learned Magistrate considering that there is no satisfactory evidence to drive home the guilt of the accused had chosen to acquit the accused. Even though medical evidence was available, that medical evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for recording conviction and it is quite obvious and axiomatic. However, P.W.7, the Doctor with reference to Ex.P3, the accident register would state that P.W.4, the injured narrated to her that he was attacked by known persons with iron rod and bill hook. But a perusal of Ex.P.3 would show that none of the injuries were inflicted by using sharp edged weapon like a bill hook. Had really the bill hook was used as narrated by the prosecution case, certainly there must have been cut injuries.
8. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:
"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.
14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself.
(ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 Sathyajit Banerjee and Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would run thus:
"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice."
A bare perusal of the said precedents would demonstrate and display that the revisional court is not expected to interfere with the findings given by both the courts below and if there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of both the courts below, the question of revisional court interfering with the findings would arise.
9. The trial Court being the first Court of facts had the opportunity of seeing the demeanour of the witness and arriving at a conclusion. I would like to refrain from interfering with the finding of the lower Court in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra. Simply because in the judgment, there is a typographical error that instead of referring at one point of time P.W.4 as the injured person, P.W.1 was referred to, the entire judgment would not get vitiated as the Magistrate au fait with law and au courant with facts correctly decided the matter warranting no interference by this Court.
In the result, , this criminal revision case is dismissed.
24.07.2009 Index : Yes Internet: Yes G.RAJASURIA,J., gms To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.512 of 200724.07.2009