Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:

i) P.W.3-Chinnakuruvan is the father of Mani (P.W.1), Viswan (P.W.2) and the de-facto complainant, Thangarasu (since deceased). All of them were residents of Thonnimaduvu thottam, Vattakadu within the jurisdiction of Vellithiruppur Police Station. Rathinal (P.W.4) is the wife of P.W.2. All of them are members of Scheduled Caste. A tractor bearing Regn. No.TN-36 C-8142 had been purchased in the name of P.W.1 availing the loan provided by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (TIIC Ltd). However, they had also borrowed some amount from Thangarasu (son of Rangasamy), the first accused. On 14.03.2001, P.W.1 had parked the above said tractor with trailer in the front yard of their house in Thonnimaduvu thottam, Vattakadu. With the intention of committing punishable offences, the appellants 1 and 2 herein (A1 and A3), along with Uthirasamy (A2), Natraj (A4) and 10 more unidentified persons, trespassed into the front yard of the house of P.W.3 and demanded repayment of money after catching hold of P.W.1-Mani by his shirt. He replied that the entire amount due to the first appellant (A1) was repaid and nothing remained to be repaid. On hearing the said reply, the accused persons informed P.W.1 that he should pay the amount or else they would take the tractor. On hearing the noise, the de-facto complainant, Thangarasu (since deceased) came out from their house. On seeing him the accused persons caught hold of them by their hair, attacked them with their hands and caused simple injuries. Similarly, P.W.2-Viswan and his wife Rathinal (P.W.4) came out. But sensing trouble, P.W.2-Viswan ran away from the said place and took shelter in the nearby sugarcane field. P.W.4-Rathinal was also assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused took the tractor and also P.W.1 to Uppukodikkal thottam where he was compelled to affix his signature in blank bond papers. However, P.W.1 managed to escape from the said place. Meanwhile, the de-facto complainant, Thangarasu had been taken to Anthiyur Government hospital for treatment.

20. It is not in dispute that the tractor bearing Regn. No.TN-36 C-8142 produced as M.O.1 was purchased by P.W.1-Mani with the help of the financial assistance extended by TIIC. It is also not in dispute that apart from the loan advanced by TIIC, P.W.1 did get some amount from the first appellant as loan for purchasing the said tractor, perhaps to cover the margin money. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the said tractor had been pledged with the first appellant and possession of the same was handed over to the first appellant based on the understanding that the first appellant would get back the tractor, after repaying the amount lent by the first appellant. However, a novel stand had been taken to the effect that the amount borrowed from the first appellant had been repaid and the tractor pledged with the first appellant had been redeemed several months prior to the date of occurrence. However, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in this regard differ in material particulars. P.W.1, in his evidence in chief examination has stated that the tractor was purchased by him in 1999; that 1 = years prior to the date of his examination as P.W.1 in the trial court, he had handed over the same for the amount borrowed from the first appellant and that he took back the tractor six months after the said pledge was created. In his cross examination, at one place, he would state that he borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the first appellant and at another place, he would state that he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from first appellant and Rs.20,000/- from the second appellant (A3). At yet another place, P.W.1 has stated that he along with his father, namely P.W.3 borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the second appellant/A3 and executed Ex.B2. P.W.1 who has admitted that such a document evidencing borrowal was executed in favour of the first appellant (A1), is not able to produce any document showing the discharge of such a debt. At one place, he has stated that he repaid the amount borrowed from the first appellant and took back the tractor from him. In yet another place, he has stated that the bank authorities (referring to the officials of the TIIC) seized the vehicle from the first appellant and handed over the same to P.W.1.

21. P.W.2, who is none other than the brother of P.W.1 would plead ignorance as to whether P.W.1 had borrowed any amount for the purchase of tractor from the appellants. P.W.3, the father of P.Ws.1 and 2 would state that it was he who purchased the tractor in the name of his son P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that they had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the appellants for which they had pledged the tractor with the first appellant, whereas P.W.3 would state that the appellants 1 and 3 paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- only as hire charges for using the tractor. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that the tractor was handed over to the appellants on the understanding that the appellant would pay the monthly dues to TIIC which would come around Rs.15,000/- per month. An entirely new case has been sought to be introduced by P.W.1 that prior to the occurrence concerned in this case the accused persons forcibly took the tractor from P.W.3 after attacking him and took the tractor to Burgur. It is his further evidence that he waited for four days in vein after lodging a complaint on the file of Vellithiruppur Police Station and thereafter he gave a complaint to TIIC, pursuant to which, the TIIC authorities seized the tractor from Burgur and entrusted the same to P.W.3 at his residence. During cross-examination, P.W.3 has performed a somersault and stated that he did not entrust the tractor to the accused persons either for hire or on any other account. P.W.4 admitted that P.W.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the first accused, but she would assert that the said amount was repaid. If it is true that P.W.1 got back the tractor from the first appellant after pledging the same with the first appellant by paying back the amount borrowed, P.W.1 or his family members alone would have paid the dues payable to TIIC thereafter. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that six months after the creation of pledge, the tractor was redeemed and thereafter it was in the possession and custody of P.W.1. As pointed out supra there is contradiction regarding how P.W.1 regained possession.

22. While narrating how the accused persons happened to be in possession of the property prior to the date of occurrence and P.W.1 was able to regain possession, P.W.1 has come forward with an entirely new story by giving evidence to the effect that the occurrence concerned in this case was not the first time when the accused persons forcibly took the tractor from P.W.1 and that even on a prior occasion during day time the accused persons took the tractor from his possession after attacking him, pursuant to which, he lodged a complaint at the first instance on the file of Vellithiruppur Police Station; that the police people in Vellithiruppur police station contacted over phone the Station House Officer in Burgur police station and thereafter asked P.W.3 to go home promising that they would hand over the tractor to him; that after waiting for four days in vain he had to give a complaint to the officials of TIIC and that pursuant to the said complaint the officials of TIIC seized the tractor from Burgur and handed over the same to P.W.3.