THE HONOURABLE MR v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 11.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.721 of 2004P.Annamalai .. PetitionerVs.1.The State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, PCR Wing, Dharmapuri.2.V.Sundaram3.P.Dadhu @ Peria Dadhu4.R.jagadeesan5.B.Govindan .. RespondentsPrayer:- This revision has been preferred against the order dated06.02.2004 made in S.C.No.96 of 2002 on the file of the SpecialJudge for SC & ST Atrocities Act.For Petitioner :Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondents :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian (for R1)Additional Public ProsecutorMr.C.Prabakaran (for R2 to R5)JUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred by the complainant-P.W.1 inS.C.No.96 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for Preventionof (SC & ST) Atrocities Act, (Principal Sessions Judge), Dharmapuriat Krishnagiri. On the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1under Ex.P.1 P.W.10 has registered a case under Section 3(1)(x) ofthe Prevention of (SC & ST) Atrocities Act. 2. On the appearance of the accused on summons, the learnedSessions Judge has furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,and the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of (SC & ST)Atrocities Act was framed and when questioned, the accused pleadednot guilty. Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examinedand Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.P.W.1 is the complainant. He would narrate what he hasstated in Ex.P.1-complaint. According to him, the occurrence hadtaken place on 26.12.2000 at about 8.00 am. The allegation againstA1 to A4 made by P.W.1 is that they abused him by caste. Ex.P.1is the complaint preferred by P.W.13.P.W.2 to P.W.5 have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.P.W.5 is an independent witness. P.W.6 is a mahazar witness.P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.7 & P.W.8 are the eye witnesses. P.W.9 is not aneye witness to the occurrence. P.W.10 is the inspector of Police,who had registered the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1under Karimangalam Police Station Cr.No.1532 of 2000 under Section3(1)(x) of the Prevention of (SC & ST) Atrocities Act. Ex.P.8 isthe FIR.4.P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer, who had visited theplace of occurrence on 13.1.2000 and prepared Ex.P.7 is theobservation mahazar and had drawn Ex.P.10-rough sketch in thepresence of P.W.6. He had arrested all the accused on 24.1.2001and produced them before the court for judicial remand. Aftergetting the community certificate for the complainant as well asfor all the accused from the Deputy Tahsildar concerned, he hadexamined the witnesses and recorded their statement and aftercompleting the formalities, has filed the charge sheet against theaccused on 2.2.2001.5.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity withthe crime. The accused have not examined any witness on theirside. After going through the oral and documentary evidence let inby the prosecution, the learned trial judge has come to theconclusion that the charge levelled against the accused has notbeen proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly acquittedthe accused from the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved bythe findings of the learned trial judge P.W.1 has preferred thisrevision.6.Now the point for determination in this revision is whetherthe findings of the learned trial judge is perverse in nature towarrant any interference from this Court?7.The Point:- 7(a) The learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner Mr.R.Snakarasubhu would contend that the learned trialjudge has acquitted the accused only on two grounds. The firstbeing P.W.5 is a notorious man having bad antecedents and hence hisevidence cannot be relied upon and he was in a way helped P.W.1 toencroach upon a poramboke land. The second and main reason onwhich the learned trial judge has acquitted the accused is on theground of in ordinate delay in preferring the FIR. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7(b) The learned counsel appearing for R2 to R5 (A1 toA4) relying on 2003 SCC (Cri) 1205 (Thankappan Nadar and Others),would contend that under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the HighCourt's power of a revision in an application filed by the de-factocomplainant against acquittal order is very limited and only theHigh Court can interfere in the order of acquittal if it is broughtto the light before the High Court that there was a proceduralillegality or manifest error of law and while passing the order ofacquittal the clinching evidence was overlooked by the trial Courtand apart from that the High Court could not reappreciate theentire evidence and take a view contrary for setting aside an orderof acquittal. The Honourable Apex Court in its findings in theabove cited case has observed that:"there was no procedural illegality or manifesterror of law found by the High Court while reversing thefindings of the learned trial judge. Merelyreappreciating the entire evidence the High Court hadtaken a contrary view for setting aside the order ofacquittal. Only on that ground it was held by theHonourable Apex Court that such a course is notpermissible for the High Court in exercising therevisional jurisdiction at the instance of the de-factocomplainant against the order of acquittal."The next ratio decidendi on which the learned counsel appearing forR2 to R5 (A1 to A4) placed his reliance is AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT990 (Kishan Swaroop Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi). In the saidcase, relying on an earlier decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788(K.Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) the HonourableApex Court has held that :"The High Court relying on the provisions ofSections 378 & 210 of Cr.P.C., has concluded that it wasthe primary responsibility of the State to fileappeal/revision and therefore no criminal revision inrespect of an order which is appealable at the instanceof the State could/should be entertained without therequisite permission of the Public prosecutor." It has been further observed that in dealing with therevision powers of the High Court vis-a-vis the right ofa private party to move in revision against an order ofacquittal passed in a case instituted upon a policereport.Further it has been observed by the Honourable Apex Courtin the same judgment as follows:-It is true that it is open to an High Court inrevision to set aside an order of acquittal even at theinstance of private parties, though the State may nothave thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction shouldin our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect inthe procedure or there is a manifest error on a point oflaw and consequently there has been a flagrantmiscarriage of justice."In the case on hand, the glaring defect in the judgment of thelearned trial judge, which necessitated this Court to interferewith the findings of the learned trial judge, is the reasoninggiven by the learned trail judge i.e, the inordinate delay inpreferring the complaint on the date of occurrence. Admittedly theoccurrence had taken place on 26.11.2000 at about 8.00 am.It is in evidence that P.W.1 has immediately approached the policeand preferred the complaint which is Ex.P.1. But Ex.P.1 is dated2.12.2000 and the FIR was registered on 15.12.2000. Only on thisground that for an occurrence which took place on 26.11.2000, aftera lapse of 19 days the complaint under Ex.P.1 was preferred byP.W.1 the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused from thecharges levelled against them. It is pertinent to note at thisjuncture the evidence of P.W.10 which will go to show that therewas flagrant violation of law in registering the FIR. P.W.10, theInspector of Police, who had registered the FIR Ex.P.8 would admitin the cross-examination that even on 26.11.2000 at about 10.00 amP.W.1 came to the police station and preferred an oral complaint.He would further admit that even on a mere oral complaint actioncan be taken without insisting for a written complaint. 7(c) The learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 154 ofCr.P.C., and contended that there is a violation on the part ofP.W.10 on his failure to reduce it in writing the oral informationpassed on to him by P.W.1 and to register the case. Section 154of Cr.P.C., reads as follows:-"Information in congnizable cases:-(1) Every information relating to the commission of acognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writingby him or under his direction, and be read over to theinformant; and every such information, whether given inwriting or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall besigned by the person giving it, and the substance thereofshall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer insuch form as the State Government may prescribe in thisbehalf.(2) A copy of the information as recorded undersub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost,to the informant.(3)Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of anofficer in charge of a police station to record theinformation referred to in sub-section (1) may send thesubstance of such information, in writing and by post, tothe Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfiedthat such information discloses the commission of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cognizable offence, shall either investigate the casehimself or direct an investigation to be made by anypolice officer subordinate to him, in the manner providedby this Code, and such officer shall have all the powersof an officer in charge of the police station in relationto that offence.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would furtherrepresent that since the police failed to take action on the oralcomplaint preferred by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence itself,P.W.1 immediately approached the Superintendent of Police concernedand preferred a written complaint. He further represents that thesaid complaint was not marked before the trial Court by theprosecution and that he is having a copy of the same. 7(d)Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that thefindings of the learned trial judge is free from glaring defect inthe procedure followed and there is manifest error on the point oflaw which led to a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Under suchcircumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case, in which,this Court has to interfere with the findings of acquittal by thelearned trial Judge. Point is answered accordingly.8.In fine, the revision is allowed and the findings of thelearned trial judge in S.C.No.96 of 2002 on the file of the SpecialJudge for Prevention of (SC & ST) Atrocities Act, (PrincipalSessions Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is set aside and thematter is remanded to the trial Court for a fresh trial. P.W.1must be given an opportunity to mark the complaint preferred by himto the Superintendent of Police on the date of occurrence i.e., on26.11.2000. The trial Court need not be carried away by any of theobservation made by this Court in this order. Sd/-Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar.To,1. The Special Judge, Prevention of (SC & ST) Atrocities Act, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, PCR Wing, Dharmapuri.•1 cc to Mr. C. Prabakaran, Advocate SR No. 41938ASM(CO) SR/19.7.2007 Crl.R.C.No.721 of 2004