M.Mohan, Aged 33 Years, v. State Rep. By:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.A.No.579 of 2018 M.Mohan, S/o.Late Mani ...Appellant / de facto complainant versus 1.State Rep. By;
Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District.
(Crime No.372 of 2006) ...Respondent /Complainant 2.Councilor Arumugam 3.Babu 4.Prakash 5.Thirumal 6.Venkatesan 7.Balaji 8.Dasarathan (died) 9.Nattamai Settu 10.Baskar 11.Ravi (died) 12.Thanji @ Murugan 13.Vadivel 14.Udayan @ Udayakumar 15.Palani 16.Dhanapal 17.Krishnan (died) 18.Jayapal 19.Manikandan 20.Parthiban 21.Kumar
...Respondents /A-1 to A-20
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.232 of 2007 dated 15.04.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.Manuraj For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl. Side] For Respondent Nos.2 to 21 : No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.04.2013 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.232 of 2007.
2.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased are residents of Moonjurpet village; they had previous enmity; on 06.06.2006, there was a temple festival in Mechiyamman Temple in the village; at that time, a quarrel ensued between Babu / A-2 and the deceased Elangovan, which escalated into a violence resulting in the accused attacking the deceased and Mohan (P.W.1), Senthilkumar (P.W.2) and Krishnamurthy (P.W.3) also with deadly weapons. 3.
On these allegations, on a complaint given by Mohan (P.W.1), the respondent Police registered a case in Vellore Taluk P.S. Crime No.372 of 2006 and after completing investigation, filed a final report against 20 accused, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 r/w 120-B IPC in P.R.C.No.16 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore, who committed the case to the Court of Session, Vellore in S.C.No.232 of 2007, for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Vellore, made over the case to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, for trial.
4.
The trial Court framed the aforesaid charges against respondents 2 to 21 / A-1 to A-20 and when they were questioned, they pleaded 'not guilty'.
5.
To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses and marked 36 exhibits and 30 material objects. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.
6.
After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 15.04.2013 in S.C.No.232 of 2007, acquitted all the accused,
aggrieved by which, Mohan (P.W.1), the de facto complainant, has filed the present appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. 7.
Heard Mr.Manuraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent/State. 8.
The entire prosecution case rests on the alleged ocular evidence of Mohan (P.W.1), Senthilkumar (P.W.2) and Krishnamurthy (P.W.3). The trial Court has disbelieved the evidences of these three witnesses and therefore, acquitted the accused.
9.
Mr.Manuraj, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the discrepancies in the evidences of Mohan (P.W.1), Senthilkumar (P.W.2) and Krishnamurthy (P.W.3) are not very significant for disbelieving them in toto.
10.
It is seen that immediately after the deceased was attacked, he was carried by one Murali to the Government Hospital, Vellore for treatment, where it has been recorded in the Accident Register that the deceased was attacked by 15 persons in Alamara Street, whereas, the evidences of Mohan (P.W.1), Senthilkumar (P.W.2) and Krishnamoorthy (P.W.3) are to the effect that the incident had taken place in North Street, Moonjurpet Village.
11.
Thus, the trial Court has found out this discrepancy, which Mr.Manuraj sought to explain by contending that when there are overwhelming evidences to show that the incident had taken place at North Street, Moonjurpet Village, the reference to Alamara Street by a few witnesses are insignificant. Further, Mr.Manuraj submitted that the finding of the trial Court that there was an inordinate delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Court, cannot be, by itself, a reason to acquit the accused. 12.
Though the aforesaid submissions of Mr.Manuraj carry weight, pertinent it is to point out that the trial Court has not acquitted the accused solely on these grounds, but, on appraisal of the evidence cumulatively. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of Mohan (P.W.1) on the ground that he had got himself admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2006 at 9.45 a.m., which is 10 hours after the alleged incident. Mohan (P.W.1) has further told the doctor, who treated him that 50 known persons had assaulted him at 10.30 p.m., with sticks whereas in his evidence he has stated that he suffered hand beats. He had suffered only 4 superficial injuries. So, he was treated as an outpatient. That apart, Mohan (P.W.1) has stated that he went to Bagayam Police Station and lodged the complaint, which has been completely suppressed by the prosecution.
13.
As regards Senthilkumar (P.W.2), he had stated that he was assaulted by unknown persons, when examined by doctor. His ocular evidence is not corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, his presence has been doubted by the trial Court. 14.
The same is the case with Krishnamoorthy (P.W.3) also, whose evidence was not corroborated by any evidence. 15.
The trial Court has had the opportunity to see the demeanour of these witnesses during trial and after a careful analysis and also by giving cogent reasons, when it has disbelieved them, it may not be proper for this Court to reappreciate their evidence for reversing the judgment and order of acquittal.
16.
Trite it is that when two views are possible, the view that favours the accused merits acceptance. We are of the view that it is not a fit case to upset the judgment and order of acquittal.
17.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar sri To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore .
2. The Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District.
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1 Vellore.
4. -do- Thro, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.
5. The Session Judge, Vellore.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, (Crl.Section), Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
+1 CC to Mr.S.Manuraj, Advocate, Sr 30370.
Crl.A.No.579 of 2018 JPL(CO) LS(06/08/2021)