IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Crl. R.C. No.607 of 2005
R.Anusuya .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Inspector of Police
Pallapatti Police Station,
Salem.
2. S.Malaisamy .. Respondents
Prayer:
This Revision petition has been preferred against order dated 31.12.2004 passed in S.C.No.420 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor ~ R1
Mr.M.K.V.Sridhaaran ~ R2
O R D E R
This revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Salem in S.C.No.420 of 2001. The accused has been charged under Section 307 of IPC.
2. The Committal Court, viz., learned Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Salem after taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused on summons , furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after framing charges, when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.
3. On the side of the prosecution,P.Ws 1 to 15 were examined and Exs P1 to P12 were exhibited and M.Os 1 to 6 were marked.
4. P.W.1 is the doctor, who had examined the victim after the occurrence and issued Ex P2 on the basis of Ex P1 intimation. P.W.2 is also a Plastic surgeon, who had treated the victim and issued Ex P3 series regarding the treatment given by him to the victim(P.W.4). P.W.3 is also a Plastic Surgeon, who had treated P.W4 and issued Ex P4 certificate. According to P.W.4, due to previous enmity, on 29.4.2001 at about 6.30 a.m., while she was sitting in front of her house, the accused came there, after purchasing cigarette from her husband’s shop, which is situate in front of her house, had thrown away a plastic container at her which caused burn injuries all over her body and with the help of P.W.5 Shanmugam, she was taken to a private hospital and preferred Ex P5 complaint with the Inspector of Police, Pallapatti Police Station. M.O.1 is the plastic container thrown by the accused at her. Ex P5 is the complaint preferred by her. M.O.2 and M.O.3 are her wearing apparels worn by her at the time of occurrence.
4a. P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence he has treated as a hostile witness. P.W.6 would corroborate the evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that at the time of occurrence on 29.4.2002 at about 6.30a.m., the accused had thrown a plastic box on P.W.4, which made her to raise distress call. P.W.7 is the husband of P.W.4 who would also depose to the fact that due to previous enmity, the accused on the date of occurrence after purchasing cigarette from his petty shop situated in front of his house, had thrown a plastic box containing acid at his wife which caused burn injuries all over her body and that he had also sustained burn injuries on his hand while, he came to the rescue of P.W.4.
4b.P.W.8 is the colleague of P.W.4. She speaks about the motive for the occurrence. According to her, on 15.2.2001 , while she and P.W.4 were talking to the Executive Engineer, TWAD Board, the accused came there and used derogative remarks on them and as per the advise of the Executive Engineer P.W.4 has preferred a complaint with the police on 16.2.2001. According to her(P.W.8), the accused tendered apology before her and hence she has not preferred any complaint against him and on intervention of the Superintending Engineer, a mediation took place and the issue was settled amicably between the accused, P.W.4 and P.W.8.
4c. P.W.9 speaks about the motive for the occurrence, an incident which took place between the accused and P.W.4 and P.W.8. P.W 10 has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence he was treated as a hostile witness. P.W.11 has also followed the suit of P.W.10. P.W.12 and P.W.13 also speak about the motive for the occurrence which took place between the accused and P.W.4 and P.W.8. P.W.14 is the then Inspector of Police,Pallarpatti Police, who had registered the case under Pallarpatti Police Station Crime No.491/01 under Section 307 of IPC against the accused on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.4. Ex P8 is the First Information Report. He had visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P10 observation mahazar and had drawn Ex P9 rough sketch had recovered white box under Ex P11 in the presence of witnesses and had arrested the accused on 29.4.2001 at 5.00p.m., and visited the hospital where P.W.4 was taking treatment and from her, had recovered M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.3 under Ex P12 mahazar. After following the formalities and after completing the investigation, has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 11.6.2001.
5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. The accused has marked Exs D1 to D3 on his side.
6.After going through both oral and documentary evidence let in by both sides, the learned Trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the guilt against the accused under Section 307 of IPC has not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge the revision petitioner/P.W.4 has preferred this revision.
7. Now the point for determination in this revision petition is whether the finding of the trial Judge suffers from any procedural illegality or manifest error of law or perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court?.
8. Heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. V.R.Balasubramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr.M.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and considered their rival submissions.
9. The Point:
Mr.M.K.V.Sridharan,the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that in a revision against acquittal, this Court need not go into the evidence adduced before the trial Court in detail. But only to see whether the finding of the learned trial Judge suffers from any procedural irregularity or manifest error of law or perverse in nature. In support of his contention, the learned counsel would rely on Thankkappan Nadar and others-vs- Gopalakrishnan and another (2003 Supreme Court Cases(cri) 1205 ) and contended that the accused who has been charged under Sections 143,147,148 307 and 149 of IPC was acquitted by the trial Court and on appeal, the High Court after setting aside the order of acquittal, has convicted the accused, which necessitated the accused to approach the Apex Court wherein the Honourable Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court has held as follows:
” In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is limited. The law as enunciated by the Supreme Court does not empower the Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence.
For this proposition of law, the following ratio decidentis were relied on. Akalu Ahir.v.Ramdeo Ram(1973)2 SCC 583:1973 SCC (cri)903; Vimal Singh .v.Khuman Singh(1998)7 SCC 223:1998 SCC (cri) 1574; Logendranath Jha.v. Polai Lal Biswas ,AIR 1951 SC 316: 12951 SCR 676; K.Chinnaswamy Reddy.v.State of A.P.AIR 1962 SC 1788: (1963) I CriLJ 8; Mahendra Pratap Singh.v.Sarju Singh,AIR 1968 SC 707: 1968 Cri LJ 865: Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju v.Bonapalli Peda Appadu, (1975) 4 SCC 477: 1975 SCC (cri) 543: AIR 1975 SC 1854: Ayodhya Dube .v.Ram Sumer Singh, 1981 Supp SCC 83: 1982 SCC (cri) 471: AIR 1981 SC 1415. It has been further observed by the Honourable Apex Court in the above said dictum that the High Court, while setting aside the orders of the Sessions Court has not found any procedural illegality or manifest error of law in the order passed by the appellate Court and it was not the case of the appellant or the respondent that the appellate Court has overlooked the evidence which clinched the issue but the High Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence and has taken a contrary view for setting aside the acquittal order of the Sessions Judge. The Honourable Apex Court has held that the revisional Court ,while exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the de-facto complainant is not permitted to re-appreciate the entire evidence against the order of acquittal.
10. Coming to the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in this case, the learned Sessions Judge only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.4 is not definite to bring the guilt of the accused because even according to P.W.4 subsequent to the occurrence, she had given an interview in a private TV in which she would admit that the accused has not committed the alleged offenece and even before the Doctor P.W.1, who had treated her soon after the occurrence, she had only stated that she was attacked only by unknown person. It is admitted in evidence that both the accused, P.W.4 and P.W.8 are working in the same Government TWAD Office. According to P.W.4, the victim, at the time of occurrence, apart from the accused another person was also present. But P.W.7 , the husband of P.W.4 in his evidence has stated that at the time of occurrence, the accused alone was present.
11. Further through P.W.11, the entries in the log book of the jeep Exs D1 to D3 were marked. Exs D1 to D3 will go to show that on 15.2.2001 from 8.00 a.m., till 8.30 p.m., and on 16.2.2001 at 8.00 am to 5.30 p.m., the accused was not at his working place but was away with P.W.11 in the jeep. Admittedly, the accused is a jeep driver of P.W.11. This evidence will cut at the root of the prosecution for the motive alleged by the accused for the occurrence because according to P.W.4 andP.W.8 on 15.2.2001, while they were talking to P.W.11, the accused came there and used derogative remarks against them, which resulted in a police complaint, which was subsequently compromised between the parties at the intervention of P.W.11. No doubt P.W.4 had sustained grievous injuries all over her body in the occurrence as seen from M.O.4 to M.O.6. But P.W.4 was not definite in her case that accused alone had thrown acid at her at the time of occurrence and there is no explanation forthcoming from her why she has not implicated the accused, while she was interviewed by a private TV.
12. Under such circumstances, following the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court, I do not find any procedural illegality or manifest error of law or perversity in the Judgment of the learned trial Judge to warrant any interference from this Court. The point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.420 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Mahila Court, Salem.
sg
To
1. The Sessions Judge of Mahila Court,
Salem
2. The District and Sessions Judge,
Salem
3. The Inspector of Police
Pallapatti Police Station,
Salem
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
[PRV/10564]