THE HONOURABLE MR v. State by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station, Thiruvarur District.2.Balasubramanian3.Rethanakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 16.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.582 of 2004Prabhavathi.. Petitioner/ PW1Vs.1.State by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station, Thiruvarur District.2.Balasubramanian3.Rethanakumar .. Respondents/ Respondents/ Accused 1 & 2Prayer:- This revision filed u/s 397 & 401 of Cr.PC has beenpreferred against the judgment dated 31.12.2003 made in C.C.No.32of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.For Petitioner :Mr.S.SenthilnathanFor Respondents :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian (for R1)Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.T.R.Ravi (for R2 & R3) (Legal Aid Counsel)JUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred against the judgment inC.C.No.32 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Thiruvarur.2.The short facts of the case of the prosecution is that on18.08.2001 at about 5.00 pm the accused have abused P.W.1 and P.W.2in filthy language on the score that their sheeps were allowed tograze in their land and that both A1 and A2 have assaulted P.W.1 &P.W.2 with aruval causing simple injuries on the left eye brow andleft elbow of P.W.1 and on the left eye brow and left shoulder ofP.W.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned JudicialMagistrate had issued summons to the accused and on theirappearance, the learned Judicial Magistrate furnished copies underSection 207 of Cr.P.C., to the accused and when the charge levelledagainst them were explained and questioned, they pleaded notguilty. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 wereexamined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked.4.P.W.1 is an injured. According to her, on the date ofoccurrence at about 5.30 pm the accused abused her in filthylanguage and A2 had assaulted her, by holding her tuft, with anaruval on the left eye brow and also on the left elbow causingsimple injuries and on her distress call P.W.2-Renuka, her eldersister, came to her rescue and at that time A1 has assaulted P.W.1on her left eye brow and also on her left shoulder causing simpleinjuries.5.P.W.2, another injured, has also corroborated the evidenceof P.W.1. According to her, at the time of occurrence, both theaccused had abused her in filthy language and A2 had assaultedP.W.1 with aruval on her left elbow and when she rushed to therescue of her sister P.W.1, A1 had assaulted her (P.W.2) with anaruval on her left eye brow and also on the left shoulder causingsimple injuries. 6.P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1 & P.W.2. She is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. She had rushed to the place ofoccurrence only after the occurrence. But she would depose thatthe accused while they were retrieving, criminally intimidated her.7.P.W.4 & P.W.5 are also not eye witnesses to the occurrence.8.P.W.6 is the Doctor, who had examined P.W.2-Renuka on18.8.2001 at about 7.30 pm and had issued Ex.P.2-copy of theaccident register. He had seen a lacerated injury on the leftshoulder of P.W.2 measuring 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm, and another stab injuryon the left side of the fore head measuring 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms andalso another stab injury on the left elbow measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm.He has also examined P.W.1-Prabhavathi for theinjuries she had sustained on the same date and issued Ex.P.3-copyof the accident register, which shows that P.W.1 had sustained acut injury on the left fore-arm measuring 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.9.P.W.7 is the witness in Ex.P.4-observation mahazar.10.P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who had registered thecase under Cr.No.208 of 2001 under section 294(b), 324 & 506(ii)IPC. Ex.P.5 is the copy of the FIR. Ex.P.6 is the rough sketchdrawn by him. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statements. After completing the formalities, he has filed thecharge sheet against the accused on 4.10.2001.11.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied their complicitywith the crime. The accused have not examined any witness on theirside. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary,the learned trial Judge has held that the charges levelled againstthe accused have not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt andaccordingly, acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, P.W.1-Prabhavathi, injured, has preferred this revision.12.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioner Thiru.Mr.S.Senthilnathan and the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, and the Legal Aid CounselMr.T.R.Ravi appearing for R2 & R3 and considered their rivalsubmissions.13.The revision has been preferred against the judgment ofacquittal. The learned trial judge has assigned reasons foracquitting the accused as there are discrepancies seen in thecomplaint and the evidence of the injured witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2.The learned trial judge has further observed that the overtactattributed against the accused are not in conformity with theevidence of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also with thecomplaint Ex.P.1. A perusal of the complaint-Ex.P.1 preferred byP.W.1 is that at the time of occurrence both A1 & A2 have abusedher in filthy language since her goats have grazed in the land ofthe accused. Further in the complaint P.W.1 has stated that A2 hasassaulted her with an aruval causing injuries and that A1 hascaused injuries with an aruval on P.W.2. The fact that in Ex.P.1the non mentioning of the specific overtact regarding in which partof the body of P.W.1 & P.W.2, A1 and A2 have inflicted injurieswith aruval will in no way affect the case of the prosecutionbecause Ex.P.1 cannot be an encyclopedia for the occurrence.P.W.2 and P.W.1 in their evidence before the Court as specificallydeposed about the overtact of A1 & A2 which were corroborated bythe medical evidence of P.W.6, who had issued Ex.P.2-copy of theaccident register for the injuries sustained by P.W.2-Renuka andEx.P.3-copy of the accident register for the injuries sustained byP.W.1. Under such circumstances, the findings of the learnedtrial Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt ofthe accused warrants interference from this Court.14.In fine, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.32 of2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, is herebyset aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court forfresh consideration according to law. The trial Court need not be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ carried away by the observation made by this Court in this order.The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within twomonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order.The services rendered by the learned Legal Aid CounselMr.T.R.Ravi is recorded with appreciation. The Member Secretary ofthe Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority is directed to pay a sum ofRs.3,000/- to the Legal Aid Counsel towards his remuneration. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssvTo,1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.2.-do-The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.3. The Member SecretaryTamilnadu Legal Service AuthorityHigh Court, Madras.4. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.582 of 2004NSM (CO)kk 23/7