IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:7.7.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2006 Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.State,rep.by Inspector of Police, Thiruvalangadu Police Station, Thiruvellore District. 2.Logu Mudaliar 3.Jagadesan 4.Narayanan 5.Kumaresan 6.Saravanan 7.Sekar 8.Natarajan 9.Mohan 10.Vadivel 11.Parthiban 12.Palani 13.Ramu 14.Kirubakaran 15.Venkatesan 16.Prabhu 17.Velayutham 18.Annamalai ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Chenglepet, in S.C.No.124 of 2002. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Elavarasan For Respondents : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. For R1 O R D E R Animadverting upon the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Chenglepet, in S.C.No.124 of 2002, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. The epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the following offences: Accused Offence 1 to 17 Sec.148 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of SC/St Act 2,4,7 and 10 Sec.324 of IPC 1,3,5,6,8,9,11,13 to 17 Sec.324 IPC r/w.149 IPC 3,5,6,12 Sec.323 IPC 1,2,4,7,8 to 10, 13 to 17 Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC 2,11 to 13 Sec.323 IPC 1,3 to 10, 14 to 17 Sec.323 r/w.149 11 to 13 Sec.323 IPC 1 to 10, 14 to 17 Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC 1 Sec.323 IPC 2 to 17 Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC 4,6,14,15 Sec.324 IPC 1 to 3, 7 to 13, 16, 17 Sec.324 r/w.149 12 Sec.323 IPC 1 to 11, 13 to 17 Sec.323 r/w.149 IPC 14, 16, 17 323 IPC 1 to 13, 15 323 r/w.149 IPC 5,8,9 323 IPC 1 to 4, 6, 7, 10 to 17 323 r/w.149 IPC 2,3,4,6,13 325 IPC 1,5,7 to 12, 14 to 17 325 r/w.149 IPC After entering appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty. Whereupon, trial was conducted. 3. Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging and impugning the judgement passed by the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus: Without appreciating the facts on record, as well as the accident registers marked as Exs.P2 to P11, the lower Court simply acquitted the accused. The lower Court has not properly appreciated the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 14. The trial Judge wrongly understood that because one other counter case in C.C.No.183 of 2000 and another case in S.C.No.141 of 2004 were pending in the Fast Track Court, Tiruvallur, this case was falsely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ foisted as against the accused. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/defacto complainant prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for passing suitable orders. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of the lower Court in appreciating the evidence. 6. After arguing the matter for some time in the previous hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner took time to report as to what happened to the other two connected cases, which were pending. 7. Today the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reported that in the other two connected cases the de-facto complainant herein and his men were acquitted. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would reiterate the grounds of revision. 8. A plain reading of the judgement of the lower Court, coupled with the evidence on record would exemplify and demonstrate that the lower Court thoroughly examined the evidence placed before it. The gist and kernal of the prosecution case, as found displayed in the police report is to the effect that the accused persons A1 to A17 along with other unknown persons, on 12.8.2000 at about 12.00, at Chinnakalakattur Village, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with the common objective to utter out abusive and vituperative, scurrilous and unprintable, defamatory and denigrating, non-U and vulgar words as against the de-facto complainant and his people, who are belonging to S.C. Community, and also to cause injuries to them and in pursuance of the said common object the accused attacked them and caused injuries. As such, the police laid the police report as against the accused as referred to supra. 9. It is an admitted fact that there were two other cases pending, in which the de-facto complainant and his party men were accused, but those cases ended in acquittal. The learned Principle Sessions Judge would observe that there are material contradictions among the depositions of the witnesses relating to the alleged abusing of the de-facto complainant and his party men by the accused. Each witness gave his own narration about it. Over and above that the learned Judge also pointed out that relating to the infliction of injury by the individual accused concerned and the sustaining of injury by the individual injured persons concerned, there is no consistency. Hence, the learned Judge thought fit not to convict anyone and that too in view of the fact that bad blood was running in the relationship of the de-facto complainant's group and the accused's group. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. It is a trite proposition of law that when the two groups cannot see eye to eye and they were at logger heads and that each group was trying to cut the ground under the feet of the other, the Court should be cautious in interpreting the evidence of the interested witnesses. It is well known that simply because some of the witnesses are relatives, their witnesses cannot be thrown away abruptly and blindly. But on the other hand, the Court should be doubly careful in screening and understanding the evidence. 11. In this case, the Principle Sessions Judge, applying the same principle took pains to narrate the depositions of each and every witness and pointed out the material contradictions. In fact, at paragraph No.37, the learned Judge pointed out that because of the contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the Court very much doubted the genuineness of the prosecution case itself. Normally, when a mob is attacking another group, the witnesses might not be able to describe as to which accused levelled the attack as against which accused. Inasmuch as there are material contradictions as highlighted by the lower Court, in paragraphs Nos.21 to 36, this Court being a revisional Court is disinclined to interfere with the acquittal. 12. At this juncture, my mind his reminiscent and redolent of the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court: (i) 2002 Supreme court cases (crl) 1448 - Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerpt from it would run thus: "13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjee and Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would run thus: "22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show the settled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice." 13. Wherefore, in the wake of the material contradictions highlighted by the lower Court among the witnesses and that too when there existed factional dispute between the de-facto complainant's groups and the accused's group, this Court should not try to interfere with the findings of the lower Court. The State also has not preferred any appeal, perhaps understanding the inherent defect in the prosecution case and the evidence. 14. In paragraph No.39, the lower Court also pointed out that it is an admitted fact that some time anterior to the incident concerning this case, one other incident took place and in that case the de-facto complainant's party men were arrayed as accused. The learned Judge pointed out that some time anterior to the incident involved in this case, so to say one other incident occurred relating to which accusation as against the de-facto complainant and his party men was made to the effect that it was they, who barged into the house of the accused herein and caused damage. In such a case, the Sessions Judge was right in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, as he doubted very much the truthfulness of the deposition of the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.9, examined before him to prove the occurrence. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court, warrants no interference by this Court and that too, in the wake of the other connected cases having ended in acquittal. Hence, I could see no merit in the revision and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar msk To 1.The Principal District & Sessions Judge at Chenglepet. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.657 of 2006 CKN(CO) RVL 27.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/