Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) P.W-1 - Kuppusamy, who is residing with his family in Nanjai Edayar Village, Namakkal.

(b) On 30.12.2005, by around 5 p.m. he, along with his sister https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Thangamal, and her son Mayavan - P.W-2, proceeded towards the Nanjai Edayar Kaveri river bank. At that time, A1-Senguttuvan, S/o.

Natesan @ Natarajan, A2-Manikandan @ Rusikesavan S/o.Sundarrajan and A3-Kumar S/o. Gopalakrishnan, each of them had in their hands the handle of pickaxe fitted with metal ring. With those weapons, they had attacked P.W-1- Kuppusamy and P.W- 2- Mayavan, the cousin of P.W-1. P.W-1 suffered injuries on the head and on his left elbow. A1 had caused injuries on the head of P.W-1. A2 had caused injuries on the left elbow of P.W-1. A3 also caused injuries on the head of P.W.1. To break out the attack, P.W-2 intervened, and he too suffered injuries in the hands of A1 to A3. Hearing the cries of P.W-1 and P.W-2, the sons of P.W-1, P.W-3 and P.W-4 rushed to the place of occurrence and intervened there, preventing A1 to A3 from further attack by P.W-1 and P.W-2. Also, Thiru.Periyasamy, P.W-3 and Thiru.Marimuthu, P.W-4 came to the rescue of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and took them to the Government Hospital, Paramathi, Namakkal. After first aid P.W-1 and P.W-2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Paramathi, Namakkal, P.W- 9, the Inspector of Police, Paramathi, Velur Police Station, had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis received the complaint from P.W-1 under Ex.P-1 and registered the FIR under Ex.P-6 for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.426 of 2005.

a) On receipt of the case records in C.C.No.14 of 2006, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, had taken the case on file.

b) On appearance of A1 to A3, and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for A1 to A3, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, had framed the charges.

20. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants/De facto Complainants that the evidence of the injured witnesses is supported by medical witnesses. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, failed to appreciate the evidence, stating that there were no independent witnesses. Instead of sifting the evidence along with the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Magistrate, Paramathi, had accepted the Prosecution case on the lines of "weight of evidence". The quantity of Prosecution Witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-4 had supported the case of the Prosecution along with P.W-8, P.W- 10, and P.W-11. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, failed to sift the evidence based on normal human conduct and the materials available in the cross-examination of the Prosecution Witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-4, P.W-8, P.W-10 and P.W-11.

24. On perusal of the judgment of the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, this Court is unable to accept the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Judge mechanically believing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prosecution Witnesses, P.W-1 to P.W-4 and corroborated with the evidence of P.W-8, P.W-10 and P.W-11. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, failed to appreciate evidence by sifting the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-4. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, in C.C.No.14 of 2006 dated 17.07.2014 and in the light of the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Crl.A.No.52 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015, the judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, is found acceptable that it is on proper appreciation of evidence by sifting the evidence and considering the quality of the evidence from the angle of the normal human conduct of the witnesses. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondents 2 and 4, the Appellate Court shall not disturb the finding of acquittal if it is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Here, the learned Appellate Judge had disturbed the finding of guilt recorded by the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, on the ground that the learned Trial Judge had not considered the materials available in the cross-examination of P.W- 1 to P.W-4 and P.W-8, P.W-9, P.W-10 and P.W-11. Considering the time of occurrence between 5 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., there is every likelihood of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis people available near the river bank either going towards the river to take bath or returning from the river after taking bath. In the absence of any independent witnesses, the evidence of P.W-9, Investigation Officer, that there was no independent witness at that time cannot at all be accepted. P.W-3 and P.W-4 are the sons of P.W-2. They had stated that between 5 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., there are people coming to the river. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, did not assess evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act by sifting the evidence. Whereas, the learned Appellate Judge had assessed the evidence by sifting the evidence. Therefore, the benefit of doubt available in the Prosecution case was given to A1 to A3, and A1 to A3 were acquitted from the charges for the offences under Section 506(2) of IPC. A2 and A3 were acquitted from the charges for the offences under Section 324 of IPC.