Mrs.Pitchammal v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Crl.A.No.658 of 2015 Pitchammal ... Appellant/Defacto Complainant Vs.

1.State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Athur Division, Thammampatti Police Station, Salem District.

2.Kandasamy ... Respondents/Complainant, Accused Prayer : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the Judgment in S.C.No.252 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 12.02.2015.

For Appellant :

Mr.P.Hari Babu For Respondents:

Mr.T.Shanmuga Rajeshwaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 Mr.N.A.Ravindran for R2

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, made in S.C.No.252 of 2013 dated 12.02.2015.

2.The appellant is the defacto complainant, who filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police on 31.12.2012 seeking action against the 2nd respondent/accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 468 IPC read with 3 (1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.362 of 2012 on the file of the 1st respondent police and after investigation, the 1st respondent police laid charges against the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 406 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act and also, under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

3.On behalf of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined and 23 exhibits were marked. On behalf of the accused, one exhibit was marked and no one was examined.

4.The trial Court, after having tried the case, has ultimately found the 2nd respondent/accused not guilty and accordingly, acquitted him from the charges. Aggrieved over the said Judgment of the said acquittal made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defacto complainant. 5.Heard Mr.P.Hari Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.T.Shanmuga Rajeshwaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 1st respondent/ State and Mr.N.A.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused.

6.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent/accused belongs to Hindu Vellala Gounder community and PW1/defacto complainant belongs to Hindu Malayali ST Caste. According to the prosecution, the agricultural land at Survey No.14/2 to an extent of 2.64 acres at Sengaud Village, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District, originally belonged to one Parvathy, w/o.Lakshmana Gounder. After the death of Parvathy, her husband Lakshmana Gounder and their son Pitchamuthu had leased out the lands to one Venkatachalam on 24.05.1977. Thereafter, they left to Malaysia. On the same day, i.e., on 24.05.1977, they executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Venkatachalam.

7.Thereafter, Lakshmana Gounder expired and his sons Arumugam and Pitchamuthu had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Ravichandran on 15.12.2008 and on the strength of such Power of Attorney, the said Ravichandran executed a Sale Deed of the landed property on 22.12.2008 to one Sellaperumal. The said Sellaperumal in turn on the same day, i.e., 22.12.2008 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of PW1/defacto complainant to look after the said land and property.

8.Further, the case of the prosecution is that while the facts are so, in order to grab the property, the 2nd respondent/accused had allegedly made corrections in the Power of Attorney dated 24.05.1977 and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the accused had executed a Sale Deed on 27.08.2008 in favour of his son-in-law one Sellappan. Therefore, PW1/defacto complainant since claimed to have enjoyed the power of attorney from Sellaperumal, who claimed to have been the owner of the property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 22.12.2008 from the power of attorney holder one Ravichandran, PW1 had given a police complaint on 31.12.2012 stating that on the day about 05.00 PM, the 2nd respondent/accused with some other persons came to the landed property and scolded P.W.1. Therefore, based on the said complaint given by P.W.1, on 31.12.2012, the 1st respondent police had registered a case as stated supra and investigated the matter and laid charges for the alleged offences as set out above.

9.In this regard, the learned Sessions Judge, has considered the evidence of PW1/defacto complainant, who is the appellant herein, before the trial Court and also, having considered the other aspects of this case, has come to a conclusion that the charges made against the 2nd respondent accused were not proved and therefore, the learned trial Court Judge has acquitted the 2nd respondent/accused. 10.I have gone through the Judgment impugned herein. The learned Judge has very much relied upon the evidence adduced by PW1, who is the defacto complainant and the appellant herein. In her cross examination, PW1 has accepted the suggestions made on behalf of the defence side, that all the efforts taken by P.W.12 since ended invain, purposely, she had given complaint on 31.12.

2012 under the SC/ST Act, because if such complaint is given under SC/ST Act alone, the respondent police would come forward to take up the same and investigate the matter.

"«ð£hê£ ̃ ⡬ù Mê£Kˆî«ð£¶ ܉î Gô‹ 30 õ1⁄4ìƒè÷£è âƒèOì‹ î£¡ Þ1⁄4‰î¶ â¡Á 1è£K1⁄2‹, «ð£hê£Kì‹ aè£ ́ˆî õ£‚°ÍôˆF1⁄2‹ aê£TML»œ«÷¡.  2008TM ܉î Gôˆ¬î M¬ô aè£ ́ˆ¶ õ£ƒA«ù¡. 2008TM  å1⁄4 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡. ÜŠ«ð£¶  Þ‰ î ê‹ðõo‹ ïì‰î¶ â¡ø£TM êK.  å1⁄4 aõƒèì£êô‹ â¡ðõ ̃ Þ‰î Gôˆ¬î õ£óˆFŸ° (°ˆî¬è‚°) 憮 ‚ a裇®1⁄4‰î£ ̃ â¡Á â¡Â¬ìò 1è£ ̃ ñŸÁ‹ «ð£hê£Kì‹ aè£ ́ˆî õ£‚°ÍôˆF1⁄2‹ ÃP»œ«÷¡. 2008‹ ݇ ́  ܉î GôˆFŸ° â¡ aðòKTM I¡ Þ¬íŠ1 õ£ƒA«ù¡ â¡Á â¡ 1è£K1⁄2‹, õ£‚°ÍôˆF1⁄2‹ aê£TML»œ«÷¡. 2008‹ õ1⁄4ì‹ ï£¡ aè£ ́ˆî 1è£K¡ «ðKTM ⡬ù «ð£hê£ ̃ Mê£Kˆî£ ̃èœ. Ýü ̃ âFK¬ò»‹ Mê£Kˆî£ ̃èœ. Ýù£TM ÜŠ«ð£¶‹ ܉î Gôˆ¬î Ýü ̃ âFK âƒèÀ‚° aè£ ́‚èMTM¬ô.

Üîù£TM ÝˆÉ ̃ ñ£õ†ì àK¬ñJòTM cFñ¡øˆFTM Ü.õ.â‡.175/2009 â¡ø õö‚° èTM aêŒ«î¡ â¡ø£TM êK. Üî¡ Hø° °ˆî¬è ðíˆFŸè£è Þ¡aù£1⁄4 õö‚° èTM aêŒõîŸè£è cFñ¡ø è†ìí‹ aê1⁄2ˆî o®òMTM¬ô â¡Á õPòõ ̃ ñ 1/2012 èTM aꌶ G1⁄2¬õJTM àœ÷¶ â¡ø£TM êK. 2010‹ ݇ ́  e‡ ́‹ âFKJ¡ e¶ 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡. ÜŠ«ð£¶‹ «ð£hê£ ̃ âƒè¬÷»‹, Ýü ̃ âFK¬ò»‹ ܬöˆ¶ Mê£Kˆ¶ CMTM cFñ¡øˆFTM õö‚° Þ1⁄4Šðî£TM ï£ƒèœ 1è£ ̃ â ́‚è o®ò£¶ â¡Á aê£TML ÜŠHM†ì£ ̃èœ â¡ø£TM êK. Üî¡ Hø° 2011TM Gô ÜðèKŠ1 ÝŒõ£÷ ̃ Üõ ̃èOì‹ å1⁄4 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡. Üõ1⁄4‹ CMTM cFñ¡øˆFTM îQò£è õö ‚¬è ð£ ̃ˆ¶‚a補À‹ð® aê£TML ÜŠHM†ì£ ̃ â¡ø£TM êK. Hø° ê£ ̃ðFõ£÷ ̃ Üõ ̃èOì‹ å1⁄4 1è£ ̃ ñ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡ â¡ø£TM êK. ܉î 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆî Hø° Ý ̃.®.æ., ®.Ý ̃.æ. ÝA«ò£ ̃èœ ñ‚èœ cFñ¡øˆFTM Ýüó£ù£ ̃èœ

â¡ø£TM êK.  â ́ˆî ܬùˆ¶ oòŸCèÀ‹ «î£TMM ܬì‰îî£TM Üî¡ Hø° 30.12.2012‹ «îF «õ‡ ́añ¡«ø að£Œò£ù 1裬ó õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1 ê†ìˆF¡ W› âFKJ¡ e¶ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡ â¡ø£TM Üšõ£Á aè£ ́ˆî£TM  1è£ ̃ â ́ˆ¶‚a補õ£ ̃èœ â¡ðî£TM Üšõ£Á 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡. «ñ1⁄2‹ âFK, ñ£õ†ì ݆Cˆî¬ôõ ̃ ñŸÁ‹ Ý ̃.®.æ. ÝA«ò£ ̃ e¶ K† ñ â‡.6399/2014 èTM aꌶ G1⁄2¬õJTM àœ÷¶ â¡ø£TM êK.  aê£TMõ¶ «ð£TM Ýü ̃ âFK‚° Gôˆ¬î ÜðèK‚°‹ â‡í‹ â¶3⁄4‹ ÞTM¬ô â¡Á‹, ï£ƒèœ î£¡ aêTMôað1⁄4ñ£œ Gôˆ¬î õ£ƒAòî£è að£Œò£è Ýõíƒèœ îò£ ̃ aꌫ â¡Á‹ a꣡ù£TM êKòTMô. «ñŸð® a꣈FŸ°‹ âƒèÀ‚°‹ â‰î ê‹ñ‰îo‹ ÞTM¬ô â¡Á‹, Ýü ̃ âFKJ¡ e¶ a𣌠õö‚° «ð£† ́œ«÷£‹ â¡Á‹ a꣡ù£TM êKòTMô."

(Emphasis supplied) 11.According to the prosecution, the entire issue was triggered only on the basis of the complaint given by PW1 on 31.12.2012, and the copy of the said complaint had been marked as Ex.P.1 before the trial Court. In order to appreciate the contents of the complaint, the entire text of the complaint of PW1 is extracted hereunder:

"ÜŠ1îTM è£.H„ê‹ñ£œ (õò¶ 55), è/að è£Ooˆ¶ aêƒè£ ́ - 1¶ñ£õ£Á üƒèñ êoˆFó‹ î‹ñ‹ð†®, «êô‹ ñ£õ†ì‹.

aðÁîTM àò ̃F1⁄4 è£õTM ¶¬ø àîM ÝŒõ£÷ ̃ Üõ ̃èœ, è£õTM G¬ôò‹, î‹ñ‹ð†®.

ÜŒò£,  «ñŸð® oèõKJTM °®J1⁄4‰¶ õ1⁄4A«ø¡. ê ̃«õ ⇠14/2 ð†ì£ ⇠180 Gô‹ 2ñ£ ̃ 2.64 ã‚è ̃ GôˆF¬ù ñ«ôCò£ML1⁄4‰î âù¶ aðKòŠð£ «ô† ô†2ñí¡ è3⁄4‡ì ̃, Ü‡í¡ H„êoˆ¶ Þ1⁄4õ1⁄4‹ 1977‹ ݇ ́ î‹ñŠð†®¬ò «ê ̃‰î ïTM¬ôò è3⁄4‡ì ̃ ñè¡ è‰îê£I‚° æ ̃ ðê ̃ ðˆFó‹ Gôˆ¬î ° ˆî¬èM† ́ ðó£ñKŠ1‚è£è è‰îê£I‚° â¿F‚ aè£ ́‚èŠð†ì¶. Ýù£TM è‰îê£I â¡ðõ ̃ «ð£L ðõ ̃ ðˆFó‹ îò£ ̃ aꌶ 2008 ݇ ́ î¡ ñ1⁄4ñè¡ aêTMôŠð¡ aðò1⁄4‚° MŸAóò‹ aꌶœ÷£ ̃. «ñ1⁄2‹ I¡ Þ¬íŠ1  ð†ì£î£ó ̃ â¡Á î¡ aðòKTM õ£ƒA»œ÷£ ̃.

ï£ƒèœ ã›¬ñ G¬ôJTM àœ÷ ñ¬ôü£F ðöƒ°®Jù ̃ Þùˆîõ ̃ Ýõ£ ̃. vdnt ïTM¬ôò è3⁄4‡ì ̃ ñè¡ è‰îê£I e¶ õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1 ê†ìˆF¡ W› ïìõ®‚¬è â ́ˆ¶ âù¶ GôˆF¬ù e† ́ îó «õ‡ ́ñ£Œ ‰î ðE3⁄4ì¡ «è† ́‚a補A«ø¡.

L.T.I : 31/12/12 Þì‹: î‹ñ‹ð†® Sir, Received a Complaint and Registered a case in Thammapatty P.S. Cr.No.362/12 u/s 468 IPC r/w 3(i) IV

SC/ST Act 1989. On 31.12.12 at 13.00 hrs.

Sd/- 31.12.2012"

12.It is the case of PW1/defacto complainant that she entered into the said property only as Power of Attorney of the said Sellaperumal/P.W.6. only in the year 2008. After getting the said power, it is claimed by PW1 that she had given a complaint in the year 2008 itself against the accused and thereafter, in order to get recovery of compensation of the landed property in dispute, PW1 filed a Civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Athur, in O.S.No.175 of 2009. Thereafter, for getting the lease amount, PW1 claimed that she filed another petition as pauper in Petition No.1 of 2012 and those cases i.e., Civil Suit as well as the pauper petition are also pending.

13.It is the further claim of PW1 through her deposition before the trial Court that, in the year 2010 also, PW1 had given another complaint against the accused and at that time, the respondent Police, after enquired, both PW1 as well as the accused, had advised stating that since the issue is pending before the Civil Court, PW1 can get the remedy before the Civil Court. It is the further claim of PW1 that, in the year 2011, she had given yet another complaint to the Inspector of Land Grabbing Cell, he also in turn has instructed PW1 to get remedy before the Civil Court. Thereafter, PW1 further claimed that she had given another complaint to the SubRegistrar Office. 14.

Only in that circumstances, it was categorically stated by PW1 in her cross examination before the trial Court that, after all her attempts made from 2008 till 2012 for recovery of the disputed property from the accused ended in failure, she decided to give a false complaint against the accused before the respondent police under the SC/ST Act, with an intention that, then only the respondent police would take cognizance of the issue by setting the Criminal Law in motion. 15.This evidence of PW1 is very crucial and, this evidence of PW1 and the contents of the complaint dated 30.12.2012 i.e., Ex.P.1, since corroborating with each other, the learned Judge has very much relied upon this PW1's evidence as well as the complaint.

16.On reading of the contents in Ex.P.1-complaint, it discloses that there is nothing to make out a case against the respondent/accused punishable under Sections 406, 468 and 471 of IPC and 3(1)(iv) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1957. Not even a single word has been mentioned in Ex.P.1-complaint given by PW1 that the accused had scolded PW1 by calling her caste. In the said Ex.P.1-complaint, PW1 claimed that late

Lakshmana Gounder is the uncle of PW1. Though PW1 has made her LTI impression in the complaint as she not signed, whether the content of PW1 had been read over to her before getting her LTI, is absolutely disputed because in the complaint, PW1 has claimed that late Lakshmana Gounder, as her uncle, it is thoroughly impossible, if that being so, the question of any alleged offence under Section SC/ST Act. However, it is not known on what basis the respondent police on receipt of the said Ex.P.1- complaint has registered a case under Section 3 (1)(iv) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

17.It is also the fact that though charge has been laid by the prosecution against the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 468 and 471 of IPC, there is no direct evidence to prove such an offence against the accused. Moreover, as claimed by PW1, she received the Power of Attorney from P.W.6. only on 22.12.2008. After PW1 got the Power of Attorney in December 2008, she already approached the Civil Court by filing suit for recovery of compensation from the accused and the said case is still pending. PW1 has made several attempts by way of filing yet another petition as pauper and also had given complaint to the Inspector of Land Grabbing Cell and also, complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer and in all these attempts, even according to PW1, the concerned Authorities have rightly advised PW1 to get the remedy by approaching the competent Civil Court.

18.Since PW1 has already approached the competent Civil Court where she filed petition, which is still pending, without waiting for getting the decision of the trial Court, in order to get a quick remedy, for which, PW1 may be entitled or not, she had chosen the present way by giving a false complaint against the accused and that is the reason why even in Ex.P.1-complaint, nothing has been uttered against the accused in order to make out the case, especially, under the provisions of SC/ST Act.

19.This position in fact has been accepted by PW1 in her cross examination that, only for the purpose of taking cognizance of the complaint against the accused person, such a false complaint has been given by her.

20.All these evidences and activities of PW1 would go to show that, it is not mere PW1 but behind her some force might have been there, who would have impacted PW1, for the reasons best known to them.

These aspects have been properly considered and appreciated by the trial Court and the relevant portion of the discussion and appreciation of the trial Court are extracted hereunder for easy reference and better appreciation.

"22)Ü.ê£.1 H„ê‹ñ£œ âFK îóŠ1 õö‚èPëK¡ °Á‚° Mê£ó¬íJ¡«ð£¶ W›‚è‡ìõ£Á ÜOˆ¶œ÷ ꣆Còˆ¬î Þƒ° °PŠH ́õ¶ Iè3⁄4‹ ÜõCòñ£Aø¶.

" â ́ˆî ܬùˆ¶ oòŸCèÀ‹ «î£TMM ܬì‰îî£TM Üî¡ Hø° 30.12.2012-‹ «îF «õ‡ ́añ¡«ø að£Œò£ù 1裬ó õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1 ê†ìˆF¡W› âFKJ¡ e¶ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡ â¡ø£TM Üšõ£Á aè£ ́ˆî£TM  1è£ ̃ â ́ˆ¶a補õ£ ̃èœ â¡ðî£TM Üšõ£Á 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡. «ñ1⁄2‹ âFK, ñ£õ†ì ݆Cˆî¬ôõ ̃ ñŸÁ‹ Ý ̃.®.æ. ÝA«ò£ ̃ e¶ K† ñ â‡.6399/2014 èTM aꌶ G1⁄2¬õJTM àœ÷¶ â¡ø£TM êK....."

âù«õ Þõ1⁄4¬ìò «ñŸè‡ì ꣆CòˆF¡ð® ãŸèù«õ Hó „C¬ù‚°Kò Gô‹ ê‹ñ‰îñ£è Ü.ê£.1 ° ́‹ðˆFŸ°‹, âFK‚°‹ Hó„C¬ù ãŸð† ́ cFñ¡øˆFTM àK¬ñJòTM õö‚° èTM aꌶ, ܶ G1⁄2¬õJTM Þ1⁄4‚Aø¶ â¡Á‹, «ñ1⁄2‹ K† ñÂ î£ ‚èTM aêŒòŠð† ́ ܶ3⁄4‹ G1⁄2¬õJTM Þ1⁄4‚Aø¶ â¡Á‹, âù«õ âFK e¶ Üõ ̃ â ́ˆî ïìõ®‚¬èèœ «î£TMMJTM o®‰ îî£TM 30.12.2012-‹ «îF âFK e¶ è£õTM G¬ôòˆFTM að£Œò£è 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆ«î¡ â¡ø£TM êK â¡Á åŠ1‚ a裇 ́œ÷£ ̃."

"23) «ñ1⁄2‹ Ü.ê£.1 H„ê‹ñ£œ î¡ °Á‚° Mê£ó¬íJTM 2008-‹ õ1⁄4ìo‹ Üõ ̃ å1⁄4 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆîî£è3⁄4‹, ÜŠ«ð£¶‹ Þ¶«ð£¡ø å1⁄4 ê‹ðõ‹ ïì‰îî£è3⁄4‹, Ýù£TM «ð£Lê£ ̃ ïìõ® ‚¬è â ́‚èMTM¬ô â¡Á‹ ꣆Cò‹ ÜOˆF1⁄4‚Aø£ ̃. âù«õ âFK‚°‹ Ü.ê£.1‚°‹ Hó„C¬ù‚°Kò Gô‹ ê‹ñ‰îñ£è 2008 oîTM Hó„C¬ù ãŸð† ́, ܶ °Pˆ¶ õö‚°èœ G1⁄2¬õJTM àœ÷ G¬ôJTM âFK¬ò ðN õ£ƒ°õîŸè£è «õ‡® Üõ ̃ e¶ õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1„ê†ìˆF¡ W› 1è£ ̃ aè£ ́ˆî£TM  ã«î‹ ïìõ®‚¬è õ1⁄4‹ â¡Á è1⁄4jp Þ‰î tHf;F aî£ ́‚èŠð†ìî£è âFK îóŠHTM õ£F ́õ¶ à‡¬ñ â¡Á Þ‰î Ü.ê£.1 H„ê‹ñ£O¡ °Á‚° Mê£ó¬íJL1⁄4‰¶ GÏðí‹ ÝAø¶. âù«õ Þ‰î õö‚°‚è£è «õ‡® Ýü ̃ âFK Ü.ê£.1 ä ð£ ̃ˆ¶ "ñ¬ôò£÷ ò aõO«ò «ð£®" â¡Á ê£F aðò¬ó„ aê£TML F†®òî£è að£Œò£è ꣆Cò‹ ÜOˆF1⁄4Šðî£è«õ Þ‰ cFñ¡ø‹ o®3⁄4 aêŒòŠð ́Aø¶."

"24) Ü.ê£.1 H„ê‹ñ£œ 31.12.2012-TM î‹ñ‹ð†® è£õTM G¬ôòˆFTM aè£ ́ˆî 1è£ ̃ Ü.ê£.Ý.1 Ýè °PJìŠð† ́œ÷¶. Þ‰î 1è£KTM âFK e¶ ꣆ìŠð† ́œ÷ °Ÿø„꣆®TM a꣡ù¶«ð£TM "ñ¬ôò£÷ ò, aõO«ò «ð£®" â¡Á aê£TML F†®òî£è«õ£ ÜTMô¶ Ü.ê£.1¡ ê£F aðò¬ó °PŠH† ́ «ðC a𣶠ÞìˆFTM Üõ1⁄4‚° ÜõñKò£¬î ãŸð ́‹ õ¬èJTM aêòTMð† ́, Üîù£TM Ü.ê£.1‚° Üõñ£ù‹ «ïK†ìî£è °PŠH† ́ aê£TMôMTM¬ô. ã¡ aê£TMôMTM¬ô â¡ð Üó2 îóŠHTM â‰î M÷‚èo‹ aê£TMôŠðìMTM¬ô. Ü.ê£.Ý.1 1è£KTM Ü.ê£.1ä âFK ê£F aðò¬ó„ aê£TML F†®òî£è aê£TMôŠðì£î G¬ôJTM Þ‰î õö‚¬è ðF3⁄4 aêŒî Ü.ê£.14 è£õTM àîM ÝŒõ£÷ ̃ âšõ£Á âFK e¶ õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1„ ê†ìŠ HKM¡ð® õö‚°

ðF3⁄4 aêŒî£ ̃ â¡Á aîKòMTM¬ô. âù«õ Ü.ê£.1 ñ¬ôò£÷ ê£F¬ò„ «ê ̃‰îõ ̃ â¡ø è£óíˆFŸè£è3⁄4‹, vjphp «õÁ ê£F¬ò „ «ê ̃‰îõ ̃ â¡ðîŸè£è3⁄4‹, Üõ ̃ e¶ õ¡aè£ ́¬ñ î ́Š1 „ ê†ìˆF¡ð® õö‚° ðF3⁄4 aêŒòŠð† ́œ÷¶ ê†ìˆFŸ° 1ø‹ð£ù¶ â¡Á o®3⁄4 aêŒòŠð ́Aø¶.

25) «ñ1⁄2‹ Ü.ê£.1 aè£ ́ˆî °.M.o.ê. HK3⁄4 161(3)-¡ ð®ò£ù õ£‚°ÍôˆFTM a꣡ùð® 30.12.2012-‹ «îFò¡Á âFKJì‹ Ü.ê£.1. ñŸø ꣆CèÀì¡ aê¡Á Gô‹ ê‹ñ‰îñ£è «è†ìî£è3⁄4‹, Üîù£TM ݈FóoŸø âFK Ü.ê£.1ä ê£F aðò¬ó aê£TML F†®òî£è3⁄4‹ aê£TMôŠðìMTM¬ô. ãŸèù«õ a꣡ùð® aêƒè£ ́ Aó£ñˆFTM ê.aï.14/2-‚° ê‹ñ‰îŠð†ì 2.64 ã‚è ̃ Gô‹ °Pˆ¶ âFK è‰îê£I‚° °ˆî¬è‚° â¿F aè£ ́‚èŠð†ìî£è3⁄4‹, Üõ ̃ î¡ ñ1⁄4ñè¡ aðò1⁄4‚° Aóò‹ aꌶM†ìî£è3⁄4‹, I¡ Þ¬íŠ1‹ õ£ƒA»œ÷î£è3⁄4‹, âù«õ Üõ ̃ e¶ ïìõ®‚¬è â ́‚è «õ‡ ́‹ â¡Á aê£TMôŠð† ́œ÷¶. âù«õ âFK e¶ â‰îaõ£1⁄4 °Ÿø„꣆ ́‹ aê£TMôŠðì£î G¬ôJTM °PŠð£è âFK Ýõ투î F1⁄4ˆFòî£è«õ£ ÜTMô¶ «õÁ ã«î‹ °Ÿø„aꌬèJTM ß ́ð†ìî£è«õ£ aê£TMôŠðì£î G¬ôJTM âFK e¶ ꣆ìŠð†ì Þ.î.ê. HK3⁄4èœ 468, 471, 406, HK3⁄4 3(1) (iv) SC/ST (P of A) Act 1989 ñŸÁ‹ HK3⁄4 3(1)(X) SC/ST (P of A) Act 1989-¡ ð® õö‚° ðF3⁄4 aêŒî¶ oŸP1⁄2‹ ê†ìˆFŸ° oóí£ù õ¬èJTM Þ1⁄4Šðî£è o®3⁄4 aêŒòŠð ́Aø¶."

"Ýù£TM Ü o¡ð£è«õ 16 ꣆Cè¬÷ Mê£Kˆ¶ õ£ ‚°Íô‹ ðF3⁄4 aêŒîî£è aê£TML»œ÷£ ̃. Ü.ê£.Ý.1 1è£KTM âFK Ü.ê£.1 ä ê£F aðò¬ó„ aê£TML ÞN3⁄4ð ́ˆF «ðCòî£è aê£TMôŠðìMTM¬ô â¡Á‹, Üõ ̃èÀ‚°œ Gô Hó„C¬ù ê‹ñ‰ îñ£è àK¬ñJòTM õö‚° ÝˆÉ ̃ ñ£õ†ì àK¬ñJòTM cFñ¡øˆFTM G1⁄2¬õJTM Þ1⁄4Šð¶ aîK»‹ â¡Á‹ Ü.ê£.15 õö ‚° Mê£ó¬í ÜFè£K åŠ1‚a裇 ́œ÷£ ̃."

"nñŸè‡ì Å›G¬ôJTM ð£ ̃‚°‹«ð£¶ âFK Þ.î.ê. HK3⁄4 468, 471 ñŸÁ‹ 406-¡ ð® â¡ù °ŸøI¬öˆî£ ̃ â¡ð ≠îaõ£1⁄4 ꣆C»‹ ꣆Cò‹ ÜO‚èMTM¬ô. Ýõíƒèœ F1⁄4ˆîŠð†ìî£? ÞTM¬ô? â¡ð¶ °Pˆ¶ Mê£KŠð Þ‰î ° ŸøMòTM cFñ¡øˆFŸ° Ýœõ¬ó ÞTM¬ô. îóŠHù ̃èÀ‚°œ ãŸð† ́œ÷ àK¬ñJòTM õö‚° Hó„C¬ù °Pˆ¶ ÝˆÉ ̃ ñ£õ†ì àK¬ñJòTM cFñ¡øˆFTM ðKè£ó‹ «î®‚a補÷ «õ‡ ́‹. âù«õ âFK‚° aîó3⁄4 îó «õ‡ ́‹ â¡ø «ï£‚A«ô«ò Þšõ£Á å1⁄4 õö‚° Ü.ê£.1 aè£ ́ˆî 1è£K¡«ðKTM «ð£ìŠð† ́œ÷¶ â¡Á o®3⁄4 aêŒA«ø¡."

21.From the reading of the aforesaid findings given by the trial Court and after having gone through the materials placed before this Court including the evidence of PW1 and the complaint, this Court feels that the learned trial Court Judge, has considered all these aspects in proper perspective and he has come to the right conclusion that the charges made against the accused has not been proved.

22.It is a settled proposition that the High Court sitting on appeal against the trial Court orders that too, in a case where the accused was acquitted, it must be very careful to verify whether the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on the side of prosecution and has come to a right conclusion. In this aspect, whether any perverse finding or unjustifiable reason attributed by the trial Court for giving acquittal to the accused, has to be gone into by higher Courts, while appreciating the Judgment of the trial Court especially, case ended in acquittal. 23.This is one of such case, where the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidences and has come to a right conclusion with acceptable reasons and therefore, the reasoning given by the trial Court as well as the conclusion arrived at cannot be found fault with and hence, this Court is of the firm view that no interference is required in the Judgment impugned.

Accordingly, this Appeal fails and hence, it is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Co) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarmps To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Athur Division, Thammampatti Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras +1cc to Mr.P.Haribabu, Advocate SR.NO.19095 +1cc to Mr.N.A.Ravindran, Advocate SR.NO.19017 NMI(CO) srg:20.11.2018 Crl.A.No.658 of 2015