C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThis criminal appeal arises against the conviction sentence made in S.C. No. 53 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Judge, Pudukkottai District, dated 29.01.2003 convicting the Appellants/accused offence u/s 452 and 307 of I.P.C., to set aside the order of conviction and to acquit the Appellants/accused 1 to 3.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
P.W.1/de-facto complainant lodged a complainant with the Respondent police/Sub Inspector of Police, Karumbakudi Police Station, who came to the Government Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai, wherein the complainant was admitted as in patient. He stated in his complaint as follow: He is living of Pattathikadu village and is occupied in agricultural operations and at the same time also occupying the position as village president. On 01.11.1997 all the 3 accused came to his residence at about 09.00 p.m. while he was sleeping and attacked him with aruvals. Due to previous enmity the accused 1 and 2 and the complainant he was assaulted. The same incident was witnessed by No. 1Rangaswamy S/o Rajagopal, No. 2 Chinnammal W/o complainant, No. 3 Mrs.Perianaghi W/o Doraiswamy, No. 4 Ayyaivoo S/o Govindaswamy, No. 5 Balakrishnan S/o Doraiswamy and No. 6 Thadasamy S/o Periya swamy. The P.W.1/de-facto complainant had further narrated that accused No. 1 Ravi, was seized by the above mentioned witnesses. The other two accused fled. The said complaint was registered by police in Crime No. 529 of 1997 an alleged offence u/s 452, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. The same was registered on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m.
3. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked, 12 material objects were produced. P.W.1 had adduced evidence stating that he is occupied in a agricultural operations and also holding the position of Village president, P.W.2 his wife, P.W.3 is sister-in-law, P.W.4 hisbrother-in-law, P.W.5 one Sundaram neibour, P.W.6 resident of the same village, P.W.7 Dr. Ravi Kumar, P.w.8 also from the same village, P.W.9 Inspector of Police, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11 Inspector of Police. The documents are as follow:
Ex.P.1 .... Complaint Ex.P.2 .... Mahazar Ex.P.3 .... Mahazar Ex.P.4 .... Mahazar Ex.P.5 .... Mahazar Ex.P.6 .... Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 .... Mahazar Ex.P.8 .... Statement Ex.P.9 .... F.I.R Ex.P.10 .... Rough Sketch Ex.P.11 .... F.I.R. Ex.R.1 .... Wound certificate of A-1
The material objects are as follow:
M.O.1 .... Aruval M.O.2 .... Aruval M.O.3 .... Aruval M.O.4 .... light blue shawl M.O.5 .... blood stained concrete M.O.6 .... dhoti M.O.7 .... blood stained lungi M.O.8 .... blood stained towel M.O.9 .... blood stained jutti M.O.10 .... blood stained towel M.O.11 .... blood stained dhoti M.O.12 .... blood stained dhoti
4. The P.W.1/complainant had adduced evidence stating that he knows all three accused. P.W.2, 3 and 4 is the wife, sister-in-law and son-in-law respectively. P.W.5, 6 and 8 are known persons belonging to the same village. At that point in time P.W.1 was holding the Village President post. A-1 had stolen a vessel from Balasubramaniam''s tea stall, for which a local panchayat inquiry was conducted and a sum of Rs. 500/- was levied as fine to the accused, for which as a consequence an enmity developed between A1 and P.W.1. A-2 was defeated in the election for the panchayat local poll and this created an enmity between him and P.W.1. A-3 is the friend of A-1. All the 3 accused came to the residence of P.w.1 on 01.11.1997 at around 09.00 p.m. and put on the light and began questioning A-1 immediately A-1 used his aruval and inflicted a wound on P.W.1''s left ring finger. A-2 Govindan used his aruval and inflicted a wound on the rear side of P.W.1. A-3 also used his aruval and inflicted wound on the right side shoulder of P.W.1 and the said cried out in alarm. A-1 was actually caught hold by the others, A-2 and A-3 had fled. P.W.1 was rushed to the Government Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai. The Sub-Inspector of Police visited the hospital on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m and the complaint collected by the police. Other witnesses P.W.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 deposed this narrations in one voice.
5. P.W.7 Dr. Ravikumar had adduced evidence stating that P.W.1 was taken to the hospital on 01.11.1997 at around 11.50 p.m by his relatives and admitted in the hospital. At that time P.W.1 had sustained 3 cut injuries namely, (1) 6" x 6" wound on his left neck and profuse bleeding (2) 6" x 4" wound on his left Palm and (3) 1" x 1 1/2" cut injury on his right shoulder. The doctor further adduced evidence that the lacerated blood vessels were deep on the effected areas. All the three injuries or wound are minor injuries. The P.W.1 was an in patient in the hospital from 02.11.1997 to 01.12.1997 as an in patient.
6. The Doctor further adduced evidence in his cross examination that A-1 was admitted in the hospital on 02.11.1997 and was discharged on 01.12.1997. He also sustained 3 injuries (1) 3" x 1/2" cut injury on his left leg sole (2) 1" x 1" cull injury on his head and (3) swelling on his left eye due to blood clotting. The doctor adduced evidence accordingly by marking wound certificates as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6.
7. P.W.9 one Dhakshnamurthy, Inspector of Police had adduced evidence stating that Inspector Arumugham and Sub Inspector Srinivasan had registered a case and they placed the file before him further investigation.
8. P.W.10 Sub Inspector had adduced evidence stating that he went to the Government hospital at Pudukkottai and after seeing P.W.1 had registered the case against the three accused persons.
9. All the accused were arrested and material evidence was collected. The sub Inspector had registered a counter case lodged by the 1st accused in crime No. 530 of 1997 against the de-facto complainant and others. Subsequently the complaint was closed as a mistake of fact.
10. P.W.11 Inspector of police inspected the place of crime occurrence and prepared a rough sketch and in the presence of witnesses A-1''s complainant was registered initially in crime No. 530 of 1997 under Sections 147, 342 and 323. After the investigation the case was closed as mistake of fact in the said incident and he adduced evidence accordingly.
11. R.W.1 had also adduced evidence and denied the prosecution case. In his counter complaint he stated that he and the other two accused had been to the house of the P.W.1 and attacked him, due to previous enmity. He was caught by P.W.1''s brother, Rangaswamy and one Govindasamy, who tied his hands and legs with a rope, there after (1) Thevamani (2) Rangam (3) Ganesan, (4) Iyyavoo (5) Thangaswamy (6) Govindan and (7) Dharman, had kicked the A-1 beaten him with sticks and fisting with hands, hence he sustained injury on his head, face, left leg and other parts of his party. At another time the head cousable Kanagaraj had released him to took him to the police station.
12. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, and perusing the documentary evidence, verifying the material objects, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, had awarded the punishment as follow: for 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo a further period of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment sentencing him u/s 452 of I.P.C. 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo a further period of 1 month of Rigorous Imprisonment. This sentences awarded u/s 307 of I.P.C. to the A-1.
13. A-2 was punished u/s 452 and was sentence 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further period of 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment, u/s 452 of I.P.C. Further he was sentenced u/s 307 for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 500/- in default to undergo a further period of three months Rigorous Imprisonment.
14. A-3 was sentenced to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine, in default to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment. Which was awarded u/s 452 of I.P.C. further he was sentenced u/s 307 of I.P.C for one year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default a further period of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment and u/s 506(2) I.P.C, all the 3 accused were acquitted.
15. The above 3 accused have challenged the conviction sentenced by filing this appeal.
16. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the evidence of the prosecution is inconsistent. P.W.1 and 2 are not reliable and trust worthy. The witnesses of the prosecution stated that A-1 had fled from the place of occurrence, which is not correct. Actually the police personnel had saved him from the clutches of P.W.1''s, associates and accompanies. The learned Counsel for the Appellants further argued that the counter complaint was registered in Crime No. 530 of 1997 but is was closed by the investigation officer, assigning the reasons that the complaint is closed as a mistaken fact.
17. A1 was also admitted in the hospital on the memorandum of the police station and stayed as in-patient at the Government hospital for about one week. wound certificate was also issued by P.W.7 doctor, who also adduced evidence regarding the injuries of A-1. The learned Counsel further argued that all the accused persons are involved in agricultural operations as coolies, who are facing this criminal case for the past 13 years. Their normal family lives are being effected, they are living below the poverty line, its only due to illiteracy the incident had happened, for they are indeed socially and economically a backward class and could be considered innocent, besides they were never involved in any previous criminal cases. Hence the learned Counsel prays to allow this appeal and acquit the accused persons.
18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) argued that the conviction sentences have been awarded to the accused on the basis of the well considered prosecution evidences. The injured/complainant was an in patient in the Government hospital for one month. After examining 11 witnesses and marking 12 documents and 11 Material Objects were produced. A1 and A2 had developed previous enmity with the de-facto complainant, as such the accused persons had jointly come together with the intention of killing P.W.1. The occurrence had also taken place at the residence of P.W.1. The weapons used by the accused were also seized by the police. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) further argued that the counter case of A1 was closed after due enquiry, stating that it was not proved.
19. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Counsels from either side and on perusing the documentary evidence, the judgment passed in S.C. No. 53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, this Court is of the view that there are discrepancies which are as follows:
(1) A1''s counter complaint was registered in crime No. 530 of 1997 under Sections 342, 147 and 323 of I.P.C, the said complaint indicates that one P. Kanakaraj, Head Constable had saved him from the clutches of P.W.1''s men, the Head Constable was not examined.
(2) A1''s wound certificate issued by Dr.Ravikumar, P.W.7, stating that A1 sustained 3 distinct injuries.
(3) Against the police memo and the police man taking A1 to the Government hospital for treatment. As such a more detailed investigation and trial is imperative in this case in order to decide the issue and render justice.
20. Hence, this Court finds a discrepancy on the side of the prosecution and a lacuna in the judgment passed by the learned Judge in S.C. No. 53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003. Therefore, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, and acquits all three accused, including the remission of the fine amounts to the accused.
21. With the result the above criminal appeal No. 422 of 2003 is allowed and conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 is set aside. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
