IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Criminal R.C. No.482 of 2005
Periammal .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Palanisamy
2. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police
Puduchatiram Police Station
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal in C.C.No.368 of 2004, dated 30.112004 acquitting the first respondent for the charge under Sections 341, 294 (b), 354 and 506 (ii) IPC.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
For respondent : No appearance for R1
Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj
Govt. Advocate (crl.side) for R2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 30.11.2004, made in C.C.No.368 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 11.08.2004, at about 9.20 a.m, while the defacto complainant was walking on the pathway, belonged to the revision petitioner, she was prevented from proceeding further by the first respondent / accused and abused her with filthy languages and outraged her modesty and also threatened with dare consequences. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, the case was registered against the first respondent herein under Sections 341, 294 (b), 354 and 506 (ii) IPC.
3. As per the Judgment of the trial court, it is seen that the copies relied on by the prosecution was furnished to the first respondent, as per Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the first respondent had pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial. In support of the prosecution case, 7 witnesses were examined, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1. On the side of the first respondent / accused, one Natesan was examined as D.W.1. Considering the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court held that the guilt against the first respondent / accused was not proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt and recorded acquittal.
4. In the criminal revision, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / defacto complainant would contend that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt against the first respondent / accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the petitioner was no way responsible for the delay caused in sending the FIR. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no contradiction, which would go to the root of the prosecution case.
5. It is not in dispute that the complaint, Ex.P.1 was given by the revision petitioner / defacto complainant, only on 19.08.2004, 8 days after the alleged occurrence. Based on the complaint, Ex.P.1, the case was registered by the second respondent police under Sections 341, 294 (b), 354, and 506 (ii) IPC. For the delay of 8 days in preferring the complaint, the petitioner herein has not given any satisfactory explanation, either in the complaint or in her evidence, as P.W.1. Further, in her cross-examination, she has deposed that there was no other person available at the scene of occurrence, except herself and the first respondent. For the delay in lodging the complaint, the revision petitioner has stated that since she had aged parents, she could not give the complaint on the same day.
6. Though, P.W.2 is not an eye witness, he has deposed evidence, as if he was an eye witness to the occurrence, but, as found by the court below, he has given only a contradictory version that on 11.08.2004, at 9.30 a.m, the first respondent / accused had threatened P.W.1 with the sickle, though the same is not the case of the revision petitioner, as per Ex.P.1, complaint.
7. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are only the witness to the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively. P.W.5 was the Head Constable, who registered the case on 19.08.2004 at 3 p.m, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.1 and the FIR registered by him has been marked as Ex.P.4. As found by the trial court, there is no cogent or corroborative evidence available on record to substantiate the case of the revision petitioner / P.W.1.
8. The trial court has discussed in detail about the self-contradictory version of P.W.1 and P.W.2, with reference to Ex.P.1. With regard to the place of occurrence also, the defacto complainant, P.W.1 has given only a contradictory version, as found by the trial court. As found by the court below, there is contradiction, even with regard to the place of occurrence. The revision petitioner / P.W.1 could have lodged a complaint on the same day or at least on the next day. As held by the court below, the delay of 8 days in preferring the complaint Ex.P.1 before the second respondent and the self-contradictory version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would clearly show that the case against the first respondent was not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the Judgement of acquittal recorded by the trial court, so as to warrant any interference of this Court. Considering the arguments and the evidence available on record, I hold that the criminal revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
tsvn
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.2
Namakkal.