B A I L S L I P These Appellants/Accused 1 and 2 viz., 1) M. Saravanan (A1) 2) P. Boopalan (A2) was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 26.3.2003 and 28.4.2003 in Crl.MP.No.2833 of 2003 in Crl.A.508/03 and Crl.MP.No.4139/03 in Crl.A.508/03. In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 10.2.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Criminal Appeal No.508 of 2003 1. M.Saravanan 2. P.Boopalan .. Appellants/Accused 1 and 2 vs. The State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, B2 Police Station, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. .. Respondent/Complainant ----- Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the relief stated therein. ----- For appellants : Mr.N.R.Kaushik For respondent : Mr.S.Rajkumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ----- J U D G M E N T The appellants, who are the accused in S.C.No.351 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track I, Coimbatore, stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and each sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for six months and in addition to that, A.2 to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.4.2002 at about 5.30 p.m., when P.W.1 was returning home after attending the prayer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at Loli Road, A.1 and A.2, who came in a Yamaha Motorbike, picked up a wordy quarrel with P.W.1 resulting which, when A.1 stabbed P.W.1 on his chest, P.W.1 sustained injury on his left heel and left forehead, while A.2, on receiving the knife from A.1, attempted to stab P.W.1, which was prevented by P.W.1, during which he sustained injury on his right palm. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were coming one by one just a few yards behind P.W.1. Since P.W.1 raised an alarm, the accused escaped from the place of occurrence in the same motorbike. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P.1, complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.14 took P.W.1 to the scene of occurrence and made a survey in the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he made a preliminary enquiry and then returned to the Police Station and after receiving the complaint from P.W.1, issued a police memo. for his treatment. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent to the Hospital at about 10.50 p.m. P.W.10 is the duty Doctor who gave treatment to P.W.1. 3. P.Ws.2 and 3 claim to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 is the nearby shop owner and he speaks about the accused taking soda bottles from the shop, but he had turned hostile. P.W.6 is a nearby shop owner, who also speaks about the occurrence, but he also turned hostile. P.W.8 is the STD booth shop owner, who speaks about the occurrence. P.W.9 is working in the video coverage shop in which there is an STD Booth, from where the accused made a call to A.3. P.Ws.12 and 13 speak about the arrest of A.3. P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.519/2002. P.W.16 is the Investigation Officer, who investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 306 and 506(2) IPC. 4. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and produced M.Os.1 to 4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to the facts. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused and imposed sentences on A.1 and A.2 as stated above, against which, the present appeal has been preferred by A.1 and A.2. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the case has been foisted against the accused. The victim himself has stated in his evidence that the name of the assailant finds place in the complaint. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the appeal has to be allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side contended that immediately after receipt of the information, the police inspected the scene of occurrence and after satisfying themselves, they registered the case and hence, there is no delay in registering the case. Hence, he prayed that the judgment of the trial court has to be confirmed. 7. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that on 15.4.2002 at about 5.30 p.m. while he was walking on Loli Road, the assailants, viz., A.1 and A.2 gathered there, picked up a quarrel with P.W.1, created a scene and stabbed him. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 gave a complaint to the police. But during cross-examination, he has deposed, '8/30 kzpf;F fhty; epiyaj;jpw;Fg; nghtjw;F Kd;dhy;. 2 vjphpfSk; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,Ue;jhh;fs; vd;why; Mkhk;/ Further from the cross- examination, it is clear that P.W.1 has admitted that the names of the accused were not known to him prior to their arrest. He has deposed, 'rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ vjphpfspd; bgah; bjhpahJ/ fhty; epiyak; nghdgpd;g[ jhd; vjphpfspd; bgah; vdf;Fj; bjhpa[k;/* Therefore, from this evidence, it is clear that the names of the accused are not known to P.W.1 and that it is clear that the accused were present in the Police Station at 6.30 p.m. itself, whereas, Ex.P.1 complaint has been registered by the Police at 8.30 p.m. It is also pertinent to note that after registration of the complaint, P.W.1 was sent to the hospital only at 10.50 p.m. Thus, the reason for the delay has not been properly explained. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that P.W.1 has gone to the Police Station only at about 6.30 p.m. and at that time, he has seen the accused, but even then, he did not know the names of the accused, whereas the Ex.P.1 complaint carries the names of the accused. 8. Considering the above materials, I am of the view that the statement of P.W.1 is inconsistent with the events that had taken place and there is every possibility of manipulating and introducing the names of the accused to register a case. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that even though the investigation has been completed as per law, the accused have been falsely implicated by the prosecution. 10. From the evidence and the materials available on record, it is clear that at the scene of occurrence, no blood stains had been been recovered. As per the evidence of P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, a recovery was made and he has examined the other witness to prove the recovery, but they subsequently turned hostile. One analyzing the entire evidence, the cumulative effect is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of P.W.1 has not been properly appreciated by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the trial Court. Hence, I am of view that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the above criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants/accused, by judgment dated 8.1.2003 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track I, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.351 of 2003. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, is ordered to be returned to them. The bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled with immediate effect. gs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, B2 Police Station, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. 2. The Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track I, Coimbatore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 6. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore (for information) 7. The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (for information) + 1 cc to Mr. P. Paul Selvam, Avocate SR No.10204 PUR(CO) SR/8.3.2011 Crl. A No.508 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/