Madrasdated High Court · 2024

Crl.A.No.379 of 201820. Gnanavel21. Saminathan(A15 to A20 added as accused as per order on 25.07.2011 in C.M.P.No.2697/2010)...RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.19 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. For Appellant :Mr.Ma.Pa.Mohan For R1 :Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2 to R6 and R8 to R21:Mr.K.BaluFor R7:died and hence the charge against him is abatedJUDGMENTChallenging the order of acquittal, dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.19 of 2008, the present appeal is filed by the defacto complainant.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranks in the present appeal would also be indicated.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 20183. The case of the appellant/complainant in a nutshell is as follows :3.1 The defacto complainant viz., Purushothaman (P.W.1) belongs to Hindu SC Community and residing at Pathirakottai Colony. On 30.10.2006, the defacto complainant contested the local body election. Due to previous enmity one Krishnakumar (A-10) belonging to Pathirakottai Colony attempted to cast a vote impersonating some other person and it was prevented by the booth agent Adhikesavan. Having infuriated over this, the first accused (A1) Kumar along with other accused entered the colony, where the defacto complainant was residing and abused him in filthy language mentioning his caste name and also attacked him with an iron rod and a stick all over his body. They also set fire to the house of one Varadharasu and caused damage to his household articles. They further threatened the persons who were residing in the colony with dire consequences and left the place taking away the deadly weapons which they were carrying.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 20183.2 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.26) and marked 25 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P25) and 31 material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.31).3.3 All the accused, when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied of having committed any offence. They did not examine any witnesses on their side. A copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.959/2006 which was registered based on the complaint lodged by the present defacto complainant on 14.10.2006 was marked as Ex.D1.3.4 The learned Trial Court Judge, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, had acquitted all the accused for the offences of which they were charged. Aggrieved over which, the present appeal is filed by the defacto complainant.4. Heard Mr.Ma.Pa.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defacto complainant, Mr.S.Rajakumar, learned Additional Public 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr.K.Balu learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.5. It is not disputed that the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the accused belongs to Vanniyar Community. Though it is alleged that the occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m., on 14.07.2006, the complaint was lodged only at about 1.30 p.m. The evidence of the defacto complainant (appellant) does not fit with in his own complaint (Ex.P1). There are also glaring contradictions in the prosecution witnesses.6. Though, it is contended that P.W.1 and others were attacked with deadly weapons like iron rod and stick, no external injuries were found on their body. Moreover, the prosecution had not followed the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(1) (a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before conducting investigation. The Trial Court had in fact analyzed all these aspects and had observed thus:5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018"59. The entire case was investigated by one Sundaramurthy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti. Unfortunately now he is no more. During the pendency of trial, the Investigating Officer died. Therefore the present Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined and he deposed that he knew the facts of the case through files and one Sundaramurthy has taken the case on 14.10.2006 and he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and seized some properties from the houses of victims through separate seizure mahazars. Further he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter he remanded the properties to the judicial custody. Further he examined the doctor and obtained accident registers for the injured persons and further he examined Tahsildar and obtained community certificates of both parties and filed his final report.60. In this case, the prosecution has failed to produce the appointment order for the investigation and not completed the investigation within one month, thereby they failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(1) and (2) of SC/ST (POA) Rules. In this context, PW26 in his cross examination stated that fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghshplkpUe;J td;bfhLik jLg;g[ rl;lg;goahd tHf;if tprhhpf;f tprhuiz mjpfhhpf;F fojk; vJt[k; mDg;gg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;g[fs; cs;sjh vd;why; tprhuiz mjpfhhp epakpj;jjw;F Fwpg;g[fs; ,y;iy/ Mdhy; jfty; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsUf;F jfty; mDg;gpaJ Fwpj;j Mtz';fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore the evidence of PW26 reveals that there is no any reference in the case bundle to show that the appointment order was given to 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018Investigating Officer by the concerned Superintendent of Police, DGP or Government.61.In this context the learned counsel for the A15 to A20 has relied the Judgment in V.Ponnusamy -vs- State 2016 (3) MWN (Crl.) 148. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that the Investigating Officer has to be appointed by the Superintendent of POlice/D.G.P. or Government after taking into account of his Special Qualification as prescribed under the rules and the investigation has to be completed within 30 days. The said case law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, because in the case on hand also, there is no any record to show that the Investigating officer was appointed by Superintendent of Police of DGP or Government. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge u/s.3(1) (x) of SC/St (POA) Act.62. Further the prosecution has failed to examine the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty on the particular date of occurrence. In this case PW26 admitted that mg;nghJ gzpapypUe;j Rg;gpukzp vd;w fhty; cjtp Ma;thsiu ,e;j tHf;fpy; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;ftpy;iy vd;why; ,y;iy/ Further all the statements of witnesses have been sent to the court with inordinate delay. In this context, PW26 has admitted that Kjypy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l thf;FK:y';fs; kw;Wk; 9/11/2006 md;W jahh; bra;ag;gl;l thf;FK:y';fs; midj;Jk; ,Wjpawpf;ifa[ld; 3/2/2007 md;W ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sd vd;why; rhp/ Therefore it is clear that the statements of witnesses have been sent to the court belatedly.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 201863. The learned counsel for the defence has relied the Judgment in Shanmugam -vs- State, 2011 (1) (MWM) Crl.152. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that the FIR and statement of material witnesses dispatched to the court belatedly is fatal to the case and the prosecution has to offer proper explanation. In the case on hand also FIR and statements of material witnesses have been sent to Court belatedly. Therefore, the said case law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.64. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. Further PW26 in his evidence admitted that cz;ikapy; tHf;fpd; vjphp kzpfz;ld; vd;gtiu m/rh/1 g[Unc&hj;jkd; kw;Wk; 6 ngh;fs; jiyapy; fj;jpahy; btl;o fhag;gLj;jpajhft[k; fpuhkj;jpy; g[Fe;J fytuk; bra;jjhft[k; mth;fs; itj;jpU;j o$pl;ly; ngdh;fis fpHpj;jjhft[k; mJ bjhlh;ghf kzpfz;ld; bey;ypf;Fg;gk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;J Fw;w vz;/960-2006 tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhp/ In this context the defence counsel relied the judgment in Boya Gajji Pedda Venktanna @ Bodenna and others -vs- State 1952 MWN (Crl.) 18. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that in a complaint and counter complaint arising out of the same transactions when the prosecution proceeds on the basis of the complaint, it is the duty of the prosecution proceeds on the basis of the complaint, it is the duty of the prosecution to exhibit the counter complaint through the police officer who recorded it and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite side and place before the court a definite case which they ask it to accept. In the case on hand also counter complaint was 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018given, but the police have not followed the procedures laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case.65. Further PW26 in his cross examination stated that ts;spia Kjy; vjphp Fkhh; ,Uk;g[ igg;ghy; moj;jjhft[k; b$fehjid b$aghy; joahy; moj;jjhft[k;. rPjhuhkid 6k; vjphp uhn$e;jpud; joahy; clk;gpy; moj;jjhft[k;. tPukzpiaa[k; vjphp nty;KUfd;. ghz;oad; kw;Wk; rhkpehjd; Mfpnahh; joahy; clk;gpy; moj;jjhf g[fhhpnyh m/rh/1 d; thf;FK:yj;jpnyh brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore PW26 also admitted that according to the FIR there is no any reference about the specific overt act as alleged by PW1 in his evidence deposed before this Court. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. Further PW26 in his cross examination stated that rhl;rp tPukzp jd;id rhkpehjd;. ghz;oad; Mrpnahh; jo vLj;J te;J Juj;jpajhf brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Vw;fdnt ghz;oad; fj;jpahy; gpd;gf;fj;jpy; jhf;fpajhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ fj;jpahy; btl;oajhy; jhd; ka';fp tpl;ljhft[k; fj;jpia jpUg;gp btl;oajhy; uj;j fhakpy;iy vd;Wk; Twpdhuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp re;jpunrfud; tprhuizapd;nghJ j';fs; tPl;oypUe;j nkhl;lhh; irf;fpis moj;J behWf;fpajhf brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhp/ td;dpah;fs; nghyPrhiu mDkjpf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; nrjkhd bghUl;fis nghyPrhh; ifg;gw;wtpy;iiy vd;W Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp ghY nghyP!; tprhuizapy; jd; tPl;od; ,uz;L 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018thpir XLfis cilj;jjhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp mz;zhkiy tprhuizapd;nghJ vjphp brhf;fyp';fk; jd;Dila gp/gp/vy;/o/tp kw;Wk; kPl;liu cilj;jhh;fs; vd;Wk; nrjk; kjpg;g[ xU yl;rk; ,Uf;Fk; vd;Wk; brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp uhkyp';fk; tprhuizapd;nghJ jd; tPl;od; fjt[. fz;zho. jsthl rhkhd;fis moj;J behWf;fpajhf brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; fjt[ gw;wp brhy;ytpy;iy. kw;w tptu';fis brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ rhl;rp jpy;iy nfhtpe;jd; jd; tPl;oy; irf;fps;/ o/tp/v!;50. kpd;rhu gy;g[. gpsh!;of; bghUl;fs;. bjUf;fjt[. miwf;fjt[ Mfpatw;iw nrjg;gLj;jpajhf Twpa[s;shhuh vd;why; o/tp. blf;if nrjg;gLj;jpajhf Twpa[s;shh;. kw;w tptu';fs; ,y;iy/ 66. Further in his cross examination stated that rhl;rp tPuhrhkp tprhuizapd; nghJ vjphpfs; CUf;Fs; EiHe;jij Ke;jphpj; njhg;gpypUe;J ghh;j;jjhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp Mjpnfrtd; tprhuizapd;nghJ ts;sp. rPjhuhkd;. tPukzp. gpr;irf;fhud;. Fg;g[rhkp. b$fehjd;. re;jpunrfh;. ghY. khatd; Mfpnahh;fs; nghyP!; tprhuizapd;nghJ 15 Kjy; 20 vjphpfs; rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ cldpUe;jjhft[k; moj;jjhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore there are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses and most of the witnesses have exaggerated the occurrence. According to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there was some rioting happened on the date of occurrence, but the evidence of prosecution witnesses is highly doubtful in respect of identification of the accused and the 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018matter of the occurrence. Further there is a case in counter and most of the properties have not been brought before this court and there is a delay in investigation and therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. 67. As far as the charge against the accused u/s. 147 of IPC is concerned, according to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, a mob of persons more than 200 to 400 people involved in the occurrence, but the FIR has been registered only against 20 persons and there is no specific identification of the accused. The prosecution has failed to investigate about the number of accused involved in the occurrence, there by the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence u/s.147 IPC. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 148 IPC is concerned, there is no any specific overt act that each of the accused had deadly weapon. Therefore it is not possible to hold that all the accused had deadly weapons and caused rioting and committed the offence u/s.148 of IPC.68. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 294(b) IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution case, the accused abused obscene words that njtoah gr';fsh xf;fhy XHp';fsh eh';f Xl;Lg; nghLtij jLf;fpwJ vy;yhk; bghpa jg;g[. but according to the evidence of PW1, gwj;njtoah gr';fsh xf;fhy XHp';fsh v';fisna Xl;Lg;nghltplhky; jLf;fpwhah/ Further according to the prosecution case, one house of Varadharajan was damaged through setting fire, but the said Varadharajan has not been examined as witness by the prosecution and it creates great suspicious about the occurrence. There are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses in 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018respect of specific words uttered by the accused. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 324 IPC is concerned, there are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses and further the medical evidence is totally contrary to the oral evidence of concerned victim, and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s. 324 of IPC."7. All the above observations of the Trial Court Judge are perfectly in order and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.8. In the result,i This Criminal Appeal is dismissed.ii The judgement and orders dated 12.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.19/2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if already paid, shall be refunded to them. 10.07.2024Index : yes/noInternet: Yes/NoNeutal Citation Case: Yes/Nossi12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018To1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3. The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018R.HEMALATHA, J.,ssiCrl.A.No.379 of 2018 10.07.202414/14

Crl.A.No.379 of 201820. Gnanavel21. Saminathan(A15 to A20 added as accused as per order on 25.07.2011 in C.M.P.No.2697/2010)...RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.19 of 2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. For Appellant :Mr.Ma.Pa.Mohan For R1 :Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2 to R6 and R8 to R21:Mr.K.BaluFor R7:died and hence the charge against him is abatedJUDGMENTChallenging the order of acquittal, dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.19 of 2008, the present appeal is filed by the defacto complainant.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their ranks in the present appeal would also be indicated.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 20183. The case of the appellant/complainant in a nutshell is as follows :3.1 The defacto complainant viz., Purushothaman (P.W.1) belongs to Hindu SC Community and residing at Pathirakottai Colony. On 30.10.2006, the defacto complainant contested the local body election. Due to previous enmity one Krishnakumar (A-10) belonging to Pathirakottai Colony attempted to cast a vote impersonating some other person and it was prevented by the booth agent Adhikesavan. Having infuriated over this, the first accused (A1) Kumar along with other accused entered the colony, where the defacto complainant was residing and abused him in filthy language mentioning his caste name and also attacked him with an iron rod and a stick all over his body. They also set fire to the house of one Varadharasu and caused damage to his household articles. They further threatened the persons who were residing in the colony with dire consequences and left the place taking away the deadly weapons which they were carrying.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 20183.2 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.26) and marked 25 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P25) and 31 material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.31).3.3 All the accused, when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied of having committed any offence. They did not examine any witnesses on their side. A copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.959/2006 which was registered based on the complaint lodged by the present defacto complainant on 14.10.2006 was marked as Ex.D1.3.4 The learned Trial Court Judge, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, had acquitted all the accused for the offences of which they were charged. Aggrieved over which, the present appeal is filed by the defacto complainant.4. Heard Mr.Ma.Pa.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defacto complainant, Mr.S.Rajakumar, learned Additional Public 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr.K.Balu learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.5. It is not disputed that the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the accused belongs to Vanniyar Community. Though it is alleged that the occurrence took place at about 7.00 a.m., on 14.07.2006, the complaint was lodged only at about 1.30 p.m. The evidence of the defacto complainant (appellant) does not fit with in his own complaint (Ex.P1). There are also glaring contradictions in the prosecution witnesses.6. Though, it is contended that P.W.1 and others were attacked with deadly weapons like iron rod and stick, no external injuries were found on their body. Moreover, the prosecution had not followed the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(1) (a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before conducting investigation. The Trial Court had in fact analyzed all these aspects and had observed thus:5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018"59. The entire case was investigated by one Sundaramurthy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti. Unfortunately now he is no more. During the pendency of trial, the Investigating Officer died. Therefore the present Deputy Superintendent of Police has been examined and he deposed that he knew the facts of the case through files and one Sundaramurthy has taken the case on 14.10.2006 and he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and seized some properties from the houses of victims through separate seizure mahazars. Further he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and thereafter he remanded the properties to the judicial custody. Further he examined the doctor and obtained accident registers for the injured persons and further he examined Tahsildar and obtained community certificates of both parties and filed his final report.60. In this case, the prosecution has failed to produce the appointment order for the investigation and not completed the investigation within one month, thereby they failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(1) and (2) of SC/ST (POA) Rules. In this context, PW26 in his cross examination stated that fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghshplkpUe;J td;bfhLik jLg;g[ rl;lg;goahd tHf;if tprhhpf;f tprhuiz mjpfhhpf;F fojk; vJt[k; mDg;gg;gl;ljhf Fwpg;g[fs; cs;sjh vd;why; tprhuiz mjpfhhp epakpj;jjw;F Fwpg;g[fs; ,y;iy/ Mdhy; jfty; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsUf;F jfty; mDg;gpaJ Fwpj;j Mtz';fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore the evidence of PW26 reveals that there is no any reference in the case bundle to show that the appointment order was given to 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018Investigating Officer by the concerned Superintendent of Police, DGP or Government.61.In this context the learned counsel for the A15 to A20 has relied the Judgment in V.Ponnusamy -vs- State 2016 (3) MWN (Crl.) 148. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that the Investigating Officer has to be appointed by the Superintendent of POlice/D.G.P. or Government after taking into account of his Special Qualification as prescribed under the rules and the investigation has to be completed within 30 days. The said case law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, because in the case on hand also, there is no any record to show that the Investigating officer was appointed by Superintendent of Police of DGP or Government. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge u/s.3(1) (x) of SC/St (POA) Act.62. Further the prosecution has failed to examine the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty on the particular date of occurrence. In this case PW26 admitted that mg;nghJ gzpapypUe;j Rg;gpukzp vd;w fhty; cjtp Ma;thsiu ,e;j tHf;fpy; rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;ftpy;iy vd;why; ,y;iy/ Further all the statements of witnesses have been sent to the court with inordinate delay. In this context, PW26 has admitted that Kjypy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l thf;FK:y';fs; kw;Wk; 9/11/2006 md;W jahh; bra;ag;gl;l thf;FK:y';fs; midj;Jk; ,Wjpawpf;ifa[ld; 3/2/2007 md;W ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sd vd;why; rhp/ Therefore it is clear that the statements of witnesses have been sent to the court belatedly.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 201863. The learned counsel for the defence has relied the Judgment in Shanmugam -vs- State, 2011 (1) (MWM) Crl.152. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that the FIR and statement of material witnesses dispatched to the court belatedly is fatal to the case and the prosecution has to offer proper explanation. In the case on hand also FIR and statements of material witnesses have been sent to Court belatedly. Therefore, the said case law is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.64. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. Further PW26 in his evidence admitted that cz;ikapy; tHf;fpd; vjphp kzpfz;ld; vd;gtiu m/rh/1 g[Unc&hj;jkd; kw;Wk; 6 ngh;fs; jiyapy; fj;jpahy; btl;o fhag;gLj;jpajhft[k; fpuhkj;jpy; g[Fe;J fytuk; bra;jjhft[k; mth;fs; itj;jpU;j o$pl;ly; ngdh;fis fpHpj;jjhft[k; mJ bjhlh;ghf kzpfz;ld; bey;ypf;Fg;gk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;J Fw;w vz;/960-2006 tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhp/ In this context the defence counsel relied the judgment in Boya Gajji Pedda Venktanna @ Bodenna and others -vs- State 1952 MWN (Crl.) 18. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is clear that in a complaint and counter complaint arising out of the same transactions when the prosecution proceeds on the basis of the complaint, it is the duty of the prosecution proceeds on the basis of the complaint, it is the duty of the prosecution to exhibit the counter complaint through the police officer who recorded it and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite side and place before the court a definite case which they ask it to accept. In the case on hand also counter complaint was 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018given, but the police have not followed the procedures laid down by the Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case.65. Further PW26 in his cross examination stated that ts;spia Kjy; vjphp Fkhh; ,Uk;g[ igg;ghy; moj;jjhft[k; b$fehjid b$aghy; joahy; moj;jjhft[k;. rPjhuhkid 6k; vjphp uhn$e;jpud; joahy; clk;gpy; moj;jjhft[k;. tPukzpiaa[k; vjphp nty;KUfd;. ghz;oad; kw;Wk; rhkpehjd; Mfpnahh; joahy; clk;gpy; moj;jjhf g[fhhpnyh m/rh/1 d; thf;FK:yj;jpnyh brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore PW26 also admitted that according to the FIR there is no any reference about the specific overt act as alleged by PW1 in his evidence deposed before this Court. Therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. Further PW26 in his cross examination stated that rhl;rp tPukzp jd;id rhkpehjd;. ghz;oad; Mrpnahh; jo vLj;J te;J Juj;jpajhf brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Vw;fdnt ghz;oad; fj;jpahy; gpd;gf;fj;jpy; jhf;fpajhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ fj;jpahy; btl;oajhy; jhd; ka';fp tpl;ljhft[k; fj;jpia jpUg;gp btl;oajhy; uj;j fhakpy;iy vd;Wk; Twpdhuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp re;jpunrfud; tprhuizapd;nghJ j';fs; tPl;oypUe;j nkhl;lhh; irf;fpis moj;J behWf;fpajhf brhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhp/ td;dpah;fs; nghyPrhiu mDkjpf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; nrjkhd bghUl;fis nghyPrhh; ifg;gw;wtpy;iiy vd;W Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp ghY nghyP!; tprhuizapy; jd; tPl;od; ,uz;L 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018thpir XLfis cilj;jjhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp mz;zhkiy tprhuizapd;nghJ vjphp brhf;fyp';fk; jd;Dila gp/gp/vy;/o/tp kw;Wk; kPl;liu cilj;jhh;fs; vd;Wk; nrjk; kjpg;g[ xU yl;rk; ,Uf;Fk; vd;Wk; brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp uhkyp';fk; tprhuizapd;nghJ jd; tPl;od; fjt[. fz;zho. jsthl rhkhd;fis moj;J behWf;fpajhf brhy;ypa[s;shuh vd;why; fjt[ gw;wp brhy;ytpy;iy. kw;w tptu';fis brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ rhl;rp jpy;iy nfhtpe;jd; jd; tPl;oy; irf;fps;/ o/tp/v!;50. kpd;rhu gy;g[. gpsh!;of; bghUl;fs;. bjUf;fjt[. miwf;fjt[ Mfpatw;iw nrjg;gLj;jpajhf Twpa[s;shhuh vd;why; o/tp. blf;if nrjg;gLj;jpajhf Twpa[s;shh;. kw;w tptu';fs; ,y;iy/ 66. Further in his cross examination stated that rhl;rp tPuhrhkp tprhuizapd; nghJ vjphpfs; CUf;Fs; EiHe;jij Ke;jphpj; njhg;gpypUe;J ghh;j;jjhf Twpa[s;shuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rhl;rp Mjpnfrtd; tprhuizapd;nghJ ts;sp. rPjhuhkd;. tPukzp. gpr;irf;fhud;. Fg;g[rhkp. b$fehjd;. re;jpunrfh;. ghY. khatd; Mfpnahh;fs; nghyP!; tprhuizapd;nghJ 15 Kjy; 20 vjphpfs; rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ cldpUe;jjhft[k; moj;jjhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/ Therefore there are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses and most of the witnesses have exaggerated the occurrence. According to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there was some rioting happened on the date of occurrence, but the evidence of prosecution witnesses is highly doubtful in respect of identification of the accused and the 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018matter of the occurrence. Further there is a case in counter and most of the properties have not been brought before this court and there is a delay in investigation and therefore the reasonable doubt would arise about the prosecution case. 67. As far as the charge against the accused u/s. 147 of IPC is concerned, according to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, a mob of persons more than 200 to 400 people involved in the occurrence, but the FIR has been registered only against 20 persons and there is no specific identification of the accused. The prosecution has failed to investigate about the number of accused involved in the occurrence, there by the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence u/s.147 IPC. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 148 IPC is concerned, there is no any specific overt act that each of the accused had deadly weapon. Therefore it is not possible to hold that all the accused had deadly weapons and caused rioting and committed the offence u/s.148 of IPC.68. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 294(b) IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution case, the accused abused obscene words that njtoah gr';fsh xf;fhy XHp';fsh eh';f Xl;Lg; nghLtij jLf;fpwJ vy;yhk; bghpa jg;g[. but according to the evidence of PW1, gwj;njtoah gr';fsh xf;fhy XHp';fsh v';fisna Xl;Lg;nghltplhky; jLf;fpwhah/ Further according to the prosecution case, one house of Varadharajan was damaged through setting fire, but the said Varadharajan has not been examined as witness by the prosecution and it creates great suspicious about the occurrence. There are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses in 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018respect of specific words uttered by the accused. As far as the offence against the accused u/s. 324 IPC is concerned, there are major discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses and further the medical evidence is totally contrary to the oral evidence of concerned victim, and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s. 324 of IPC."7. All the above observations of the Trial Court Judge are perfectly in order and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.8. In the result,i This Criminal Appeal is dismissed.ii The judgement and orders dated 12.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.19/2008 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if already paid, shall be refunded to them. 10.07.2024Index : yes/noInternet: Yes/NoNeutal Citation Case: Yes/Nossi12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018To1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3. The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2018R.HEMALATHA, J.,ssiCrl.A.No.379 of 2018 10.07.202414/14