Ashok Kumar v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:7.7.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.657 of 2006Ashok Kumar... Petitioner vs.1.State,rep.by Inspector of Police, Thiruvalangadu Police Station, Thiruvellore District.2.Logu Mudaliar3.Jagadesan4.Narayanan5.Kumaresan6.Saravanan7.Sekar8.Natarajan9.Mohan10.Vadivel11.Parthiban12.Palani13.Ramu14.Kirubakaran15.Venkatesan16.Prabhu17.Velayutham18.Annamalai... Respondents Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against theorder dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Principal District & SessionsJudge at Chenglepet, in S.C.No.124 of 2002.For Petitioner : Mr.N.ElavarasanFor Respondents : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. For R1 O R D E R Animadverting upon the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by thePrincipal District & Sessions Judge at Chenglepet, in S.C.No.124of 2002, this criminal revision case is focussed.2. The epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutelynecessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revisioncase would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 ofCr.P.C. as against the accused for the following offences:AccusedOffence1 to 17Sec.148 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/St Act2,4,7 and 10Sec.324 of IPC1,3,5,6,8,9,11,13 to 17Sec.324 IPC r/w.149 IPC3,5,6,12Sec.323 IPC1,2,4,7,8 to 10, 13 to 17Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC2,11 to 13Sec.323 IPC1,3 to 10, 14 to 17Sec.323 r/w.14911 to 13Sec.323 IPC1 to 10, 14 to 17Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC1Sec.323 IPC2 to 17Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC4,6,14,15Sec.324 IPC1 to 3, 7 to 13, 16, 17Sec.324 r/w.14912Sec.323 IPC1 to 11, 13 to 17Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC14, 16, 17323 IPC1 to 13, 15323 r/w.149 IPC5,8,9323 IPC1 to 4, 6, 7, 10 to 17323 r/w.149 IPC2,3,4,6,13325 IPC1,5,7 to 12, 14 to 17325 r/w.149 IPCAfter entering appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty.Whereupon, trial was conducted. 3. Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused.Challenging and impugning the judgement passed by the lower Court,this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof ofthem would run thus:Without appreciating the facts on record, as well as theaccident registers marked as Exs.P2 to P11, the lower Court simplyacquitted the accused. The lower Court has not properlyappreciated the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 14. The trial Judgewrongly understood that because one other counter case inC.C.No.183 of 2000 and another case in S.C.No.141 of 2004 werepending in the Fast Track Court, Tiruvallur, this case was falsely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ foisted as against the accused. Accordingly, the revisionpetitioner/defacto complainant prays for setting aside the order ofthe lower Court and for passing suitable orders.4. Heard both sides.5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity or non-application of law on the part of the lower Courtin appreciating the evidence. 6. After arguing the matter for some time in the previoushearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner took timeto report as to what happened to the other two connected cases,which were pending.7. Today the learned counsel for the revision petitioner hasreported that in the other two connected cases the de-factocomplainant herein and his men were acquitted. The learned counselfor the revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds ofrevision.8. A plain reading of the judgement of the lower Court,coupled with the evidence on record would exemplify and demonstratethat the lower Court thoroughly examined the evidence placed beforeit. The gist and kernal of the prosecution case, as founddisplayed in the police report is to the effect that the accusedpersons A1 to A17 along with other unknown persons, on 12.8.2000at about 12.00, at Chinnakalakattur Village, formed themselvesinto an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with thecommon objective to utter out abusive and vituperative, scurrilousand unprintable, defamatory and denigrating, non-U and vulgar wordsas against the de-facto complainant and his people, who arebelonging to S.C. Community, and also to cause injuries to them andin pursuance of the said common object the accused attacked themand caused injuries. As such, the police laid the police report asagainst the accused as referred to supra.9. It is an admitted fact that there were two other casespending, in which the de-facto complainant and his party men wereaccused, but those cases ended in acquittal. The learned PrincipleSessions Judge would observe that there are material contradictionsamong the depositions of the witnesses relating to the allegedabusing of the de-facto complainant and his party men by theaccused. Each witness gave his own narration about it. Over andabove that the learned Judge also pointed out that relating to theinfliction of injury by the individual accused concerned and thesustaining of injury by the individual injured persons concerned,there is no consistency. Hence, the learned Judge thought fit notto convict anyone and that too in view of the fact that bad bloodwas running in the relationship of the de-facto complainant's groupand the accused's group. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. It is a trite proposition of law that when the two groupscannot see eye to eye and they were at logger heads and that eachgroup was trying to cut the ground under the feet of the other, theCourt should be cautious in interpreting the evidence of theinterested witnesses. It is well known that simply because some ofthe witnesses are relatives, their witnesses cannot be thrown awayabruptly and blindly. But on the other hand, the Court should bedoubly careful in screening and understanding the evidence.11. In this case, the Principle Sessions Judge, applying thesame principle took pains to narrate the depositions of each andevery witness and pointed out the material contradictions. Infact, at paragraph No.37, the learned Judge pointed out thatbecause of the contradictions in the depositions of the prosecutionwitnesses, the Court very much doubted the genuineness of theprosecution case itself. Normally, when a mob is attacking anothergroup, the witnesses might not be able to describe as to whichaccused levelled the attack as against which accused. Inasmuch asthere are material contradictions as highlighted by the lowerCourt, in paragraphs Nos.21 to 36, this Court being a revisionalCourt is disinclined to interfere with the acquittal. 12. At this juncture, my mind his reminiscent and redolent ofthe following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:(i) 2002 Supreme court cases (crl) 1448 - Bindeshwari PrasadSingh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegalitywas committed by the trial court. In the absence of anylegal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct ofthe trial, there was no justification for the High Court tointerfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It hasrepeatedly been held that the High Court should notreappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different fromthe trial court. In the absence of manifest illegalityresulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was notjustified in interfering with the order of acquittal inexercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance ofthe informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciationof the evidence on record may reach a conclusion differentfrom that of the trial court. But that by itself is nojustification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction underSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against ajudgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment ofthe trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defectof procedure has been pointed out. There was also noimproper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was thereany defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of thetrial vitiating the trial itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjeeand Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it wouldrun 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."13. Wherefore, in the wake of the material contradictionshighlighted by the lower Court among the witnesses and that toowhen there existed factional dispute between the de-factocomplainant's groups and the accused's group, this Court should nottry to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. The Statealso has not preferred any appeal, perhaps understanding theinherent defect in the prosecution case and the evidence.14. In paragraph No.39, the lower Court also pointed out thatit is an admitted fact that some time anterior to the incidentconcerning this case, one other incident took place and in thatcase the de-facto complainant's party men were arrayed as accused.The learned Judge pointed out that some time anterior to theincident involved in this case, so to say one other incidentoccurred relating to which accusation as against the de-factocomplainant and his party men was made to the effect that it wasthey, who barged into the house of the accused herein and causeddamage. In such a case, the Sessions Judge was right in giving thebenefit of doubt to the accused, as he doubted very much thetruthfulness of the deposition of the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.9,examined before him to prove the occurrence. Therefore, the orderpassed by the lower Court, warrants no interference by this Courtand that too, in the wake of the other connected cases having endedin acquittal. Hence, I could see no merit in the revision andaccordingly the revision petition is dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmskTo1.The Principal District & Sessions Judge at Chenglepet.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2006CKN(CO)RVL 27.07.2009