Dismissed

Selvi.M.Manimekalai v. Inspector of Police (L&O)

Madras HC23 Nov 2015CRL RC/876/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Revision Bench allowed the accused to remain acquitted based on contradictions in prosecution witness evidence regarding the timeline of the incident and lack of direct corroboration for the alleged assault.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision challenging the judgment of acquittal is dismissed, thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused.

Selvi.M.Manimekalai Vs Inspector of Police (L&O) — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.876 of 2009

¶5

Selvi.M.Manimekalai D/o.Murugesan

¶6

.. Petitioner/De facto complainant

¶7

vs.
1. The Inspector of Police (L & O),
Nagoor Police Station,
Nagoor, Nagapattinam District.
Crime No.512 of 2007 .. Ist Respondent/complainant
2.Paulraj
S/o.Selvaraj .. 2 nd Respondent/accused
Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against
the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagapattinam, passed
in C.C.No.57 of 2008 on 16.09.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajasekaran
For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj,
Government Advocate [Crl.side][R1]
O R D E R

¶8

Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagapattinam, in C.C.No.57 of 2008 on 16.09.2008, the present revision has been filed.

¶9

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2007 at about 06.00 a.m. while PW-1 was returning after attending natures call, the accused waylaid her and tore her blouse. A case in Crime No.512 of 2007 on the file of first respondent was registered. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet informing commission of offences u/s.341 and 354 IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, the case was tried in C.C.No.57 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Nagapattinam.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked four exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence, however, one exhibit was marked. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 16.09.2008, acquitted the accused. Hence, this revision.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for first respondent.

¶13

In acquitting the second respondent/accused, the trial Court has found that there were contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. While PW-1 deposed of the occurrence having been taken place on 01.09.2007 at about 06.00 a.m. and of having preferred the complaint only on 02.09.2007 since her father was not available on the day of occurrence, PW-2/mother of PW-1 deposed to having been examined by the police on the evening of 01.09.2007 itself. The trial Court further found that though PW-3, grand father of PW-1, was not a direct witness to the occurrence, he came to know about the occurrence through PW-1. PW-3 deposed to having accompanied PW-1 to the police station. It was the admission of PW-3 that his son had sold the cycle of the accused and in respect thereof, a panchayat was conducted and that his son had paid a sum of Rs.450/- under Ex.D1. Hence, it was clear that there was a strained relationship between the accused and PW-1's family. Though it was the evidence of PW-1 that the accused waylaid her and tore her blouse, there was no direct evidence in support thereof. For the above and for some other reasons, trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused of all charges. This Court finds that the judgment of acquittal rendered by trial Court is just and reasonable.

¶14

This Criminal Revision stands dismissed.

¶15

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶17

/True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

The Judicial Magistrate II, Nagapattinam.

¶21

The Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagapattinam ( for information )

¶22

The Inspector of Police (L&O), Nagoor Police Station, Nagoor, Nagapattinam District.

¶23

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.876 of 2009
CTK(CO)
sd : 05/02/2016

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Selvi.M.Manimekalai v. Inspector of Police (L&O)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi.M.Manimekalai v. Inspector of Police (L&O)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.M. Abdul Jaleel Vs Ayyappan

K.v.Muthusamy Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mukesh Vs Koushalya

H.Farook Maricar Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Yuvaraj Vs State Rep. by

M.Jeevakrishnankumar Vs the State Rep by