[CASE NUMBER] BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.10.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner/Accused No.12 Vs. [ENTITY] rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puthupattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam. (Crime No.348 of 2003) Respondent/Complainant [ENTITY] Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the same in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur as against the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.[ENTITY] For R1 : Mr.[ENTITY] Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, having been taken cognizance for http: www.judis.nic.in the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT].
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally 18 accused, in which, this petitioner is arraigned as A12. The respondent police after investigation, filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance as [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. Since the petitioner was not able to attend the trial and hence, the case was split up in [CASE NUMBER] and the trial was proceeded against the petitioner/accused No.12. After completion of the full fledged trial, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur has acquitted all accused person in [CASE NUMBER] by Judgment, dated 07.10.2016 on the ground that the prosecution has not been proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case against the petitioner is now pending as [CASE NUMBER].
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent completed the investigation and filed the final report and the same has been taken cognizance in [CASE NUMBER] and thereafter, A12 appeared before the trial Court and conducted the case, which was also ended in acquittal http: www.judis.nic.in vide judgment dated 07.10.2016. Since, the petitioner/A12 went to abroad and non bailable warrant has been issued as against him and also, since the same was unable to execute the warrant issued against the petitioner, the trial Court split up the case insofar as A-12/the petitioner is concerned in [CASE NUMBER] and it is now pending. The trial Court acquitted the other accused on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12 and marked as Exs.P1 to 30 and the trial Court found that they have not spoken about the charges to prove the same and as such, A-12 have been acquitted. In these circumstances, as against the petitioner/A-12, there is absolutely no evidence and as such, the pendency of the proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] would not serve any purpose and therefore, he prayed for quashment of entire proceedings.
5.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that there are totally eighteen accused, in which, the petitioner is arraigned as A-12 and only because of the absence of http: www.judis.nic.in the petitioner before the trial Court, his case has been split up from the main case in [CASE NUMBER], which was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 07.10.2016. Therefore, the case as against the petitioner is concerned is pending in [CASE NUMBER] for trial and the prosecution has to let in evidence and they have incriminating evidence as against the petitioner and as such, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the 1st respondent.
7.It is the admitted case of the petitioner as well as the prosecution that there are totally eighteen accused, in which, all the accused are concerned, the trial has been conducted and they have been acquitted in [CASE NUMBER] and insofar as A-12 is concerned, since non bailable warrant is pending as against him, the case has been split up in [CASE NUMBER] and the same is pending for trial. All the accused have been charged for the offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT].
http: www.judis.nic.in
8.The entire dispute is that intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate witness [ENTITY] belongs to a scheduled caste. The trial Court recorded the reason for acquittal as follows:
12. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. However, the defacto complainant P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, pror to 13 years when P.W.1 to P.W.3 visited Maathanam Bazar for having tea, there was a huge crowd and in that crowd some body has beaten P.W.1 to P.W.3. Further, the injured witnesses P.W.2 [ENTITY] and P.W.3 [ENTITY] aslo dis not support the case of the prosecution and their evidence is also in the same line as that of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is not at all implicating the accused herein. P.W.1 to P.W.3 wee treated ashostile by the prosecution, Though the prosecution was given permission to cross examine them, it could not extract anything in its favour.
13) Further, the witnesses said to have seen the occurrence P.W.4 [ENTITY], P.W.5 [ENTITY] and P.W.6 [ENTITY] were also not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 whi is said to have admitted P.W.1 in hospital is also not supported the case of the prosecution.
Even as per the case of the prosecution P.W.9 is a hearsay witness and he also did not support the case of the prosecution and nothing could be elicited from them even in their cross examination. The mahazar witnesses were not examined before this Court. In the result no substantive evidence available as against the Accused herein.
http: www.judis.nic.in
14) Though P.W.10 Dr.[ENTITY] deposed about the injury sustained by P.W.1 to P.W.3, her evidence is only corroborative in nature and in the absence of any evidence to show that the injuries were caused by the accused herein, the evidence of P.W.10 cannot ne put against the accused herein. The defacto complainant disowned his complaint and his signatures alone is marked as Ex.P.1. Even assuming that the receipt of complaint was proved through P.W.11, the complaint statement and F.I.R are only a corroborative piece of evidence, they cannot be used against the accused herein in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable douts and the accused herein are entitled to benefit of doubts.
15) In the result, this court is driven to an inevitable conclusion that the 1st Accused is not guilty of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] r/w 3 (2)
(v) [ACT] [ACT], the Accused 3, 4 & 5 are not guilty of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] and the Accused 2, 6 to 15 are not guilty of the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] and recorded their acquittal from the above charges under [SECTION] [ACT], The 1st accused who is in custody is ordered to be set at liberty at once. The bail bonds executed by the Accused are hereby discharged. http: www.judis.nic.in
9.In this regard, it is relevant to rely the judgment reported in [PRECEDENT] rep. by Inspector of Police, Paravakottai Police Station, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District, where, this Court has held as follows:
7. This Court is of the considered view that there is much force on the contention put forward by the learned senior counsel to the effect that the learned trial Judge having disbelieved the prosecution case in toto no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trail on the basis of the very same set of evidence. It is also pointed out by the learned senior counsel that even the defacto complainant himself turned hostile giving a total go-by to his earlier version and there is no other material available on record to implicate the petitioner. The learned senior counsel has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in a case in [PRECEDENT] wherein it is held as follows:
3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In [PRECEDENT], it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them http: www.judis.nic.in the other accused against whom there is absolute certainty about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of evidence of that witness must be acquitted. (See also [PRECEDENT],) [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.
4. On perusal of the Judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.1998 it appears that the deceased [ENTITY] met with a homicidal death owing to burn injuries sustained by him has not been disputed by the accused persons. The evidence against the accused persons mainly consists of the evidence of the eye- witnesses, namely, [ENTITY] (PW2) and Smt. [ENTITY]) (Wife of the deceased [ENTITY]) besides the dying declaration (Ex.PW-13/a) of the deceased [ENTITY]. Both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
Eliminating the evidence of the said eye- witnesses, there remains the dying declaration http: www.judis.nic.in (Ex.PW.13/A) of the deceased [ENTITY], which has been disbelieved by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It would, therefore, appear that the accused persons, namely, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Thus, the evidence adduced in the case against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that being so the petitioner cannot be treated differently on the basis of the said evidence. In this view of the matter, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. If the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of [SECTION] if the Code itself.
10.Further, this Court and various High Courts repeatedly held that the acquittal of the other co-accused, after considering the depositions and holding their evidence to be unreliable, the trial Court cannot re-assess their depositions once again and take a contrary view. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the above settled proposition of law laid down in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. http: www.judis.nic.in
11.In the present case, except the petitioner, other accused have been tried the charges and acquitted in [CASE NUMBER] by the trial Court by the judgment dated 17.10.2016 disbelieving the case of the prosecution and holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner is being A-12 is also standing in the same footing like the other accused persons. Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of the trial.
12.In view of the above discussion, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur is quashed as against the petitioner/A-12 is concerned.
17.10.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order dss http: www.judis.nic.in To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puthupattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http: www.judis.nic.in [ENTITY], J.
dss 17.10.2019 http: www.judis.nic.in