Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.395 of 2016 Legal Aid CounselFor Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, vide Judgment dated 27.04.2016 in S.C.No.126 of 2011, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.2(i). It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.10.2009, the officers of Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, went for a raid on the specific information that the appellant was involved in selling of illicit liquor at 10.00 a.m.; that when P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, the Police attached to the said Police Station went to the place of occurrence, the appellant fled from the scene of occurrence; that the Police officials, thereafter prepared a Mahazar and seized a five litre plastic can containing illicit liquor; that while they were on their way to the Police Station in two bikes, the 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016appellant intercepted them at a junction called the Housing Board junction at Tirupattur and attacked P.W.1 and P.W.5 with a Veech aruval (Bill hook) and caused grievous injury to them and thus, committed the offences.(ii) P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 12.10.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., which was registered by P.W.18 in Crime No.866 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 333 and 307 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. P.W.18/Inspector of Police, thereafter took up the investigation and examined the witnesses, prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P7] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P8] and seized blood-stained earth and earth without blood stains from the place of occurrence.(iii) On 18.10.2009, P.W.18, arrested the appellant at 9.00 a.m., near a junction and seized Veech aruval (M.O.1) on the confession of the accused near the house of the appellant, besides a bike (M.O.11), which was used by the accused during the occurrence.3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016(iv) After completion of the investigation, P.W.18 filed a final report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 333 and 307 of the IPC r/w 27 (1) of the Arms Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tirupattur.(v) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.126 of 2011 and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Assistant Sessions and Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 333, 337 and 307 of the IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty.'(vi) To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016examined one Sathanantham, as D.W.1. No documents were marked on his side. Eleven documents were marked as Court documents.(vii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offences under Sections 332, 333 and 337 of the IPC and convicted him for the offences under Sections 307 (2 counts) and 341 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment (each) and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (each); in default, to undergo two months of simple imprisonment (each) for the offence under Section 307 (2 counts) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC; in default, to undergo one week of simple imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal.3. A learned counsel had presented the appeal with a memo of appearance. Thereafter, since there was no representation for the appellant, this Court, by the order dated 03.04.2023 appointed Mr.R.Vivekananthan as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 20164. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case has not been established beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution case is improbable; that the appellant who is said to have fled from the scene of occurrence, when the police party raided his place would not intercept them thereafter and expose his identity; that there is a discrepancy in the time and place of occurrence as could be seen from the Accident Register, Wound Certificate and in the FIR; that there are several contradictions in the manner, in which the occurrence took place in the versions of the witnesses and hence submitted that the case has been foisted only to detain the appellant under the Preventive Detention Laws and sought for acquittal. 5. Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, per contra, submitted that though the independent witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, the Accident Register, Wound Certificate and the evidence of the Doctor(s) establish that the appellant had attacked P.W.1 and P.W.5; that the evidence 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016of the Police officials cannot be brushed aside for want of corroboration and submitted that the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 (2 counts) of the IPC. 6. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined twenty witnesses. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are injured witnesses. P.W.1 was working as a Grade-I Constable and P.W.5 was working as a Head Constable in Tirupattur Taluk Police Station. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable respectively of the same Police Station. P.W.4 is a private person, said to be related to P.W.5 and examined as an eyewitness, who turned hostile. P.W.6 the Village Administrative Officer, said to have signed in the Seizure Mahazar, turned hostile. P.W.7 to P.W.14, examined as independent witnesses to prove the occurrence, turned hostile. P.W.15 is a Doctor at Vellore Christian Medical College (CMC) Hospital, who treated P.W.5. He had made entries in the wound certificate (Ex.P3). P.W.16 is the Court staff, who sent the articles to the Forensic Lab. P.W.17, is the Doctor at Government Hospital, Tirupattur, who treated both P.W.1 and P.W.5 and issued Accident Registers (Ex.P4 & Ex.P5). P.W.18 is the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016investigating officer. P.W.19 and P.W.20 are Forensic Science Experts examined to prove the blood stains in the weapon seized and other articles. D.W.1 was examined by the defence to show that the occurrence did not take place as alleged by the prosecution.7. The description of the witnesses above would show that all the independent witnesses, including P.W.4 turned hostile. In fact, P.W.4 is related to P.W.5 an injured witness. The VAO (P.W.6), also turned hostile. It is in this background that this Court has to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and the evidence of the Doctors on which the prosecution case rests.8. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 went to the place where the appellant is said to have sold illicit liquor. The appellant is said to have fled from the place on seeing the police. The Police had seized a five-litre plastic can, prepared a Mahazar and returned from the place carrying a five-litre plastic can of illicit liquor to the 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016Police Station on two two-wheelers.9. It is the version of P.W.1 that he, along with P.W.5, was travelling on one bike, and the plastic can was carried by P.W.5. However, both P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were working as Sub Inspector of Police and Head Constable in the very same police station, had contradicted that statement. They deposed that the plastic can was carried to the police station by one Desingh (not examined) and P.W.3. There is also a contradiction as to which route were taken by the officials to go to the police station after the occurrence. P.W.3 would state that he had travelled along with the said Desingh from Krishnagiri to Dharmapuri, which is contrary to the prosecution case. 10. PW15-Doctor, who examined PW5 at CMC Hospital, Vellore had deposed that PW5 had stated that he was attacked at 10.30 a.m. near Tamil Nadu Housing Board Junction. The wound certificate [Ex.P3] issued by the doctor [PW15], confirms the said fact. Further, PW17-Doctor, who first 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016examined the witnesses PW1 and PW5, had made entries in the Accident Registers [Ex.P4 and Ex.P5]. In the Accident Register [Ex.P4], it is seen that a correction has been made in the entries with regard to time and the place of occurrence. The original entry states that the occurrence took place at 10.40 a.m., near Pudupettai Road. However, the altered entry states that as if the occurrence took place at 11.45 a.m. at Housing Board Junction, Gandhi Statue. Both the entries are clear at a cursory glance, as the previous entries have not been scored out completely. Thus, this Court finds that there is manipulation in the records as regards the time and place of the occurrence, which cannot be countenanced. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to why there was a discrepancy in noting the time and place of occurrence.11. Further, PW17, had stated in his cross-examination that none of the injuries said to have been sustained by PW1 and PW5 could have been caused by a knife. The cross-examination of PW17, is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of his facts.10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016“Kjypy; fhag;gl;ltu;fs; g[Jngl;il nuhL vd Twptpl;L gpd;du; mtprp';nghh;L re;jpg;g[ vd Twpajhy; jpUj;jk; bra;Js;nsd;/ ,uz;Lnk btt;ntW ,l';fs;/ ehd; vd;id tprhhpf;Fk; nghJ tHf;Frk;ke;jg;gl;l rhd;W bghUis vd;dplk; fhz;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ fj;jp Fj;J fhak; vJt[k; nkw;fz;l egu;fs; clk;gpy; ,y;iy/ bghJthf rpije;j fha';fs; xU brhubrhug;ghd gFjpapy; Kl;odhy; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ/ FkhUf;F Vw;gl;l fha';fs; btl;L fha';fs; fpilahJ/ fj;jp Fj;Jf;fSk; fpilahJ/”12. As stated earlier, PW4, who is said to be related to PW5 had deposed that he saw two injured policemen, PW1 and PW5 lying on the road; that there were no policemen nearby; and that he had taken them to the hospital. Though PW4 was treated as hostile, there is no reason why PW4 had to depose falsely against his own relative [PW5].13. Above all, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant had fled from the scene of the occurrence on seeing the police, he would not again be emboldened to 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016intercept and attack them in a busy place to reveal his identity and subject himself to the prosecution.14. It is also seen that the prosecution's version is that they went to raid the place where the illicit liquor was allegedly sold by the appellant, and they prepared a Mahazar. However, no such Mahazar was marked to establish that fact. They have also not produced the plastic can of illicit liquor, which is said to have been seized by them.15. Thus, all the aforesaid facts, the inherent contradictions pointed out in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5, and the fact that all the independent witnesses turned hostile throw a serious doubt in the prosecution case.16. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that it would be highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016appellant is entitled to acquittal and accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.17. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.126 of 2011, dated 27.04.2016 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 341 and 307 of the IPC and is directed to be set at liberty, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.20.06.2025Index : yes/noSpeaking /Non-speaking orderNeutral citation : yes/nodk/arsTo1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016 Tirupattur.2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore3. The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Vellore District.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.395 of 2016SUNDER MOHAN, J.dkCrl.A.No.395 of 2016 andCrl.M.P.No.11396 of 201620.06.202515