Dismissed

State Rep. by, v. Tr.S.Venugopal

Madras HC8 Feb 2018CRL A/68/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the criminal appeal against an acquittal. The bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of tainted money due to discrepancies in witness evidence. Finding the trial court's view on the accused's explanation reasonable and no perversity in the acquittal, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; Acquittal upheld.

State Rep. by, Vs Tr.S.Venugopal — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.A.No.68 of 2018

¶6

State Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. (Crime No.8/AC/2008

¶7

of Dharmapuri V & AC)

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. to allow the appeal and set aside the acquitted Judgment dated 27.07.2017 in Special C.C.No.01 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Court, Dharmapuri and convict the respondent/accused as charged.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Court, Dharmapuri, dated 27.07.2017, and to convict the respondent/accused as charged.

¶11

Heard Mr.R.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant. Mr.R.Ravindran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.

¶12

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the defacto complainant and the accompany witnesses namelyPalaniammal PW2 and Tamilarazhi PW3 and the other ocular evidence has found there is no material to the charge framed under Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by that the state has preferred the appeal on the ground that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.2, PW.3, PW.8 and PW.19.

¶13

However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused pointing out the contradiction in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 regarding the receipt of tainted money

¶14

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

¶15

and submitted that in the light of non-corroboration of the evidence of PW.2 and an interested witness who has alleged false complainant due to ill motive cannot be the basis for convicting the accused person and the trial Court has rightly ordered acquittal.

¶16

On perusing the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand as well as acceptance. There is discrepancy in respect of scene of recovery of the tainted money. The specific evidence let in by the prosecution witness No.2 is that the tainted money of Rs.3,000/- was placed in the bag fixed on the petrol tank of two wheeler as per the instruction of the accused person and at that point of time PW.3 was also present and the accused enquired who is the person accompanying the defacto complainant for which the defacto complainant has said she is her relative. Where as PW.2 has deposed that she was standing far from the place and watching the event. So the very allegation that the money was given by PW.2 in the presence of PW.3 goes unproved so also the statement of deposition regarding the alleged enquiry made by the accused person about the PW.3.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had furnished the copies of the deposition to this court. On perusal of the deposition the material contradiction in the deposition of PWs.2,3,8 and 19 regarding the admission and acceptance of the tainted money is seen.

¶18

The reading of the evidence of PW.19, this Court finds the trap laying officer corroborate the version of PW.3 and not PW.2, regarding her absence near PW.2 during the transaction of tainted money. Therefore when the defence has give a possible explanation for the presence of tainted money in two wheeler bag and accepted by the trial Court to be a reasonable and plausible explanation, the appellate Court need not substitute the view of the trial Court prejudicial to the accused person who was already been tested and protected with an order of acquittal by the trial Court.

¶19

Since, this Court finds no perversity of illegality in the finding of the trial Court, it does not require any interference. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sji

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Court, Dharmapuri.

¶27

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶28

Crl.A.No.68 of 2018

¶29

sk(co) aa22/02/2018

¶30

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

State Rep. by, v. Tr.S.Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Rep. by, v. Tr.S.Venugopal

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

Mr.R.Chinnakannu, M/A.62 Years Vs the State Rep by

N.S.Senthil Kumar, Vs the State Rep. by

S.Durga Prasad, Aged 52 Years, Vs State Rep. by

S.Kumari, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Dr.C.Swaminathan Vs the State Rep.by

S.Ragavendrn Vs State Rep by