V. Palanivel v. State, rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirukoilur Police Station, Tirukoilur & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:24.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.512 of 2007V.Palanivel... Petitioner/PW 4vs. 1. State, rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirukoilur Police Station, Tirukoilur.... Respondent/Complainant2. Seniappan3. Pandu ... Respondents/AccusedPrayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe order acquitting the accused/respondents 2 and 3 in C.C.No.85 of2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur.For Petitioner : No appearanceFor R1 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.(crl.side)----- O R D E RAnimadverting upon the order dated 31.07.2006 passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur in C.C.No.85 of 2002, thiscriminal revision is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which areabsolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revisionpetition would run thus:(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173Cr.P.C. as against two accused, namely, Seviappan and Pandu for theoffences under Sections 294, 324, 506(2) IPC on the main ground thatowing to previous enmity, A1 and A2 in furtherance of their commonintention, on 10.01.2001 at about 21.00 hrs in front of one SelvarajNadar grocery shop, Thirukovilur to Lalapettai road, Meyyur village,abused Palanivelu and his wife in filthy language and also attackedthem, so to say, A1 attacked Palanivelu with a bill hook and A2attacked the same Palanivelu with iron road and also intimidated himwith dire consequences. (b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducted and during trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 8 wereexamined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. No oral or documentaryevidence was adduced on the side of the accused. Ultimately, thetrial Court acquitted the accused.3. Animadverting upon such acquittal, this revision has beenfocussed by the injured Palanivelu on various grounds, the warp andwoof of them would run thus:The trial Court took serious note of certain minorcontradictions and simply held that the prosecution case was notproved, ignoring even the medical evidence. The learned Magistratewas not right in referring to the deposition of P.W.1, as in hisjudgment he misconstrued P.W.1 as the injured witness, but it wasonly P.W.4 who was the injured witness. Accordingly, he prayed forsetting aside the judgment of acquittal and to pass necessary orders.4. Despite printing the names of the learned counsel for therevision petitioner and R2 and R3/accused, none appeared. 5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), who wouldsubmit that the State has not preferred any appeal.6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity of non- application of law in analysing the evidence inrendering the judgment of acquittal in acquitting the accused. 7. A plain reading of the judgment of the lower Court coupledwith the evidence available on record would exemplify anddemonstrate, expatiate and display that the trial Court took intoconsideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 the alleged eye witnessesto the occurrence. PW.1, Uttharan in his deposition would statesimply as though the accused attacked Palanivelu by using bill hookand iron rod. But he did not state anything about the allegedintimidation held out by the accused as against P.W.2 Ramakrishnan.P.W.1 also has not narrated as to which accused used which weapon andhow the injuries were inflicted. It is not a case where a group ofpeople attacked another group, so that the eye witnesses might not beable to give a descriptive picture or narration about the facts. Butin this case, only two accused are involved and P.W.1 could not fullynarrate the incident and it is quite obvious from a plain reading ofhis deposition. P.W.2, Ramakrishnan was cross examined by thelearned Public Prosecutor as he pleaded ignorance about theoccurrence. P.W.3, Selvaraj also was cross examined by the learnedPublic Prosecutor. P.W.4, Palanivelu the injured witness in hisdeposition, as correctly pointed out by the learned Magistratenarrated as though A2 attacked him with bill hook and A1 attackedhim with iron rod. This narration is quite antithetical to theprosecution description as according to the prosecution, it was A1who used the bill hook and A2 used iron rod. As such, the learnedMagistrate considering that there is no satisfactory evidence todrive home the guilt of the accused had chosen to acquit the accused.Even though medical evidence was available, that medical evidencealone cannot be the sole basis for recording conviction and it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quite obvious and axiomatic. However, P.W.7, the Doctor withreference to Ex.P3, the accident register would state that P.W.4, theinjured narrated to her that he was attacked by known persons withiron rod and bill hook.But a perusal of Ex.P.3 would show that noneof the injuries were inflicted by using sharp edged weapon like abill hook. Had really the bill hook was used as narrated by theprosecution case, certainly there must have been cut injuries.8. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of thefollowing decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:(i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singhand Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerptfrom it would run thus:"13. The instant case is not one where any suchillegality was committed by the trial court. In theabsence of any legal infirmity either in theprocedure or in the conduct of the trial, there wasno justification for the High Court to interfere inexercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It hasrepeatedly been held that the High Court should notreappreciate the evidence to reach a findingdifferent from the trial court. In the absence ofmanifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage ofjustice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in suchcases is not warranted.14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the HighCourt was not justified in interfering with the orderof acquittal in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It maybe that the High Court on appreciation of theevidence on record may reach a conclusion differentfrom that of the trial court. But that by itself isno justification for exercise of revisionaljurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal.We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court inthe instant case was perverse. No defect of procedurehas been pointed out. There was also no improperacceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there anydefect of procedure or illegality in the conduct ofthe trial vitiating the trial itself. (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjee andOthers vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would run thus:"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show thesettled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, atthe instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by theHigh Court only in very exceptional cases where the HighCourt finds defect of procedure or manifest error of lawresulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A bare perusal of the said precedents would demonstrate and displaythat the revisional court is not expected to interfere with thefindings given by both the courts below and if there is anyperversity or non-application of law on the part of both the courtsbelow, the question of revisional court interfering with thefindings would arise. 9. The trial Court being the first Court of facts had theopportunity of seeing the demeanour of the witness and arriving at aconclusion. I would like to refrain from interfering with thefinding of the lower Court in view of the decisions of the Hon'bleApex Court cited supra. Simply because in the judgment, there is atypographical error that instead of referring at one point of timeP.W.4 as the injured person, P.W.1 was referred to, the entirejudgment would not get vitiated as the Magistrate au fait with lawand au courant with facts correctly decided the matter warranting nointerference by this Court.In the result, , this criminal revision case is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras.4. The Inspector of Police, Tirukoilur Police Station, Tirukoilur.Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2007PUR {CO}TP/21.8.2009.