Allowed

Srinivasan v. the State by

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CRL A/794/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal wherein appellants were convicted of offences under IPC Sections 120(B), 326, 460, and 506(i). The court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution witnesses unreliable and lacking independent corroboration for conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 506(i), 120(B), 460 and 326 of IPC; fine refunded; bail bonds discharged.

Srinivasan Vs the State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL SLIP

¶2

The appellants/Accused namely 1) Srinivasan – A1,
S/o.Kolandasamy Gounder aged 40 years, 2) Sivakkkolundhu - A2,
S/o.Ramasamy, aged 32 years, 3) Prabakaran – A3, S/o.Shanmugam,
aged 23 years, are directed to the released on bail as per order
of this Court dated 05.02.2016 in CRL.MP.No.1 of 2015 in
CRL.A.No.794 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATE OF RESERVING ORDERDATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER
17.08.202122.10.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

CRL.A.NO.794 OF 2015

¶8

1.Srinivasan

¶9

2.Sivakkkolundhu

¶10

3.Prabakaran

¶11

.. Appellants/Accused

¶12

Vs.

¶13

The State by
The Inspector of Police,
Bungalow Pudur Police Station,
Erode District.
Crime No.328/2013

¶14

.. Respondent/Complainant

¶15

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellants by the judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed in
S.C.No.155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional District and
Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan

¶17

For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja,
 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

¶21

2. The convicted accused are the appellants herein.

¶22

3. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment
dated 11.15.2015 passed in S.C.No.155/2014 on the filed of the
Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District, convicting the appellants and sentenced the
first appellant to undergo 4 years R.I under Section 120(B) r/w
460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default 6 months
R.I, to undergo 4 years under Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in dafault to undergo 6 months R.I,
sentencing the second appellant to undergo 4 years R.I., under
Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default to undergo 6 months R.I., and sentenced the 3rd
appellant to undergo 4 years R.I., under Section 120(B) r/w 460
IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default 6 months
R.I., to undergo 4 years under Section 326 r/w 114 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I.

¶23

4. The respondent filed the charge sheet against the
appellants for an alleged offence under Section 120(b), 506(i),
109 r/w 326, 460 IPC which was taken on file in S.C.No.155/2014
on the file of the Third Additional Sessions Court,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District on the allegations that on
09.10.2013 at about 11.00 P.M., the appellants 2 and 3 conspired
together with the 1st appellant and entered the house of the
defacto complainant namely Mohan and the second appellant
assaulted him with Aruval and caused grievous injuries on his
head, while the third appellant assisted the second appellant.
After that, the first appellant came there and admitted the
defacto complainant into the Hospital and thereby committed the
offence.

¶24

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined
P.W.1 to P.W.8 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and MO.1 was
marked. On behalf of the defence, no documents or evidence has
been marked.

¶25

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary
evidence,thelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,
Gobichettipalayam, has convicted the accused and awarded the
sentence as stated supra.

¶26

7. Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that
(a). P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are husband and wife are
improved their version, after complaint, so as to falsely
convicted the accused.

¶27

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

¶28

(b). P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not reliable. Since the versions
are a self contradictory, as per the own version given in the
complaint with that their evidence before the Court.

¶29

(c). There is no independent eye witness to the
occurrence as projected by the prosecution.

¶30

(d). No other material is placed before the Court to
connect the accused in the crime.

¶31

(e). Earlier version given by P.W.1 (injured) given to
the Government Doctors, Sathyamangalam as well as the Doctor, at
Coimbatore as well as Ex.P1 complaint, it is unnamed and unknown
accused. The complaint was given on 20.10.2013 and further
statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 21.10.2013 and further
relevant statement was recorded on 27.10.2013.

¶32

8. In all three circumstances, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2
have whispered the names of the accused. Thereafter, under the
guise of getting the further statement under Section 161(3) of
Cr.P.C., the investigation officer has introduced A1, A2 and A3,
as an accused. Due to previous enmity between the parties, they
have been falsely implicated.

¶33

9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing
for the respondent would contend that the scene of the crime is
inside the house and hence, no independent witness would be
examined, in view of the occurrence taken inside the house.
Both, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have assigned the reason for not
mentioning the name of A1. Since A1 was circumventing them at
all relevant point of time, only during his absence, his name
was spelt out to the investigation officer and recovery and the
concern statements are proved in the manner known to law and
made submissions in support of the conviction and sentence
passedbythelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,
Gobichettipalayam.

¶34

10. After perusing the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and
also the initial statement given under Exs.P1 and P2, I find
that both P.W.1 and P.W.2, wife of P.W.1, have made improvements
in the version after completion of the investigation so as to
falsify the earlier complaint given immediately after the
occurrence. Except P.W.1 and P.W.2, no other eye witnesses are
projected. No other material was produced before the Sessions
Court to connect the accused with the crime.

¶35

11. As admitted by P.W.7 and P.W.8, the investigation
officer, the name of the accused is implicated by P.W.1, after
many number of days. There is no evidence to connect as to the
alleged previous enmity as motive. It is the specific evidence
of P.W.1 that at the time of assault, A1 has stated that because
of P.W.1, he had suffered loss in the business and A2 and A3
stabbed with Aruval. With regard to the Aruval, as a weapon of
crime, it is discussed infra.

¶36

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

¶37

12. A1 was charged under Section 120(B) of IPC. P.W.1
had disclosed before P.W.6, that he suffered injury by assault,
by unknown person, at the earliest point of time and even,
according to the evidence of P.W.1, both the complaint and his
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., on information passed on
to first accused through P.W.3, the first accused came and
accommodate him and took him to the hospital, he was all along
with P.W.1, till he was admitted in hospital, complaint was
given on 20.10.2013. The evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.8 appears to
be hearsay evidence. P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is the wife of
P.W.1. P.W.3 is the sister son of the P.W.2.

¶38

13. In the cross examination, has admitted, which reads
as under:

¶39

" g[fhh; thf;FK:yj;jpYk; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy; Jh';fpf;

¶40

bfhz;oUe;j nghJ ,lJ kzpf;fl;&d; nky; ,o tpGe;j rj;jk; nfl;L vGe;J 11 kzpf;F vGe;J ghh;j;jjhf Twpa[s;shh;/ jhd; vGe;J ghh;j;jnghJ thapy; ,Ue;J uj;jk; te;jjhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;/ kidtpia vGg;gp jfty; brhy;yp tPl;&d; btspna eh';fs; te;J ghh;j;jnghJ ahiua[k; fhztpy;iy vd;Wk;. vd; tPl;&w;Fs; ahnuh EiHe;J Vnjh Ma[jj;jhy; btl;&. vdf;F fhak; Vw;gLj;jpa[s;shh;fs; vd g[fhh; thf;FK:yj;jpy; Twpa[s;shh; vd;whh; rhpjhd;/

¶41

g[fhh; thf;FK:yj;jpy; jd;id jhf;fpaJ ahh; vd;W jdf;nfh. jd; kidtpf;nfh. kidtpapd; mf;fh kfDf;nfh bjhpahJ vd;W Twpa[s;shh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/

¶42

me;j g[fhh; thf;FK:yj;jpy; gpug[ rPdpthrDf;F jfty; brhy;yp Tl;& te;jhh; vd;W brhy;ypapUe;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/

¶43

1tJ vjphp ve;bje;j njjpapy; m/rh/1 nkhfid kpul;& te;jhh; vd;Wk;. mJ rk;ge;jkhf g[fhh; bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ K:d;W vjphpfSk; ve;j ,lj;jpy; xd;W T& rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;odhh;fs; vd;W tprhhpj;J bjhpe;J bfhz;Oh;fsh vd;why;. nghd; K:ykhf ngrp rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;oajhf bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ K:tUk; nghd; K:ykhf rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;&dhh;fsh vd;gij bjhpe;J bfhs;s nghd; ! ; nll;bkz;il vLj;J ghh;j;jPh;fsh vd;why; vjphp xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yk; bfhLj;jjhy; ehd; tprhhpf;ftpy;iy/

¶44

rhl;rpfs; vd;Dila tprhuizapy; rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;&ajhf

¶45

brhy;ytpy;iy/

¶46

rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;ghf ve;j njjpapy; v';F itj;J rjpj;jpl;lk; bra;jhh;fs; vd;W ehd; bjhpe;J bfhs;stpy;iy/ nghd; K:yk; ngrp rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;&dhh;fs;/ rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;&aJ Fwpj;J nghd; K:yk; ngrp rjpj;jpl;lk; jPl;&dhh;fs; vd;W ehd; bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/

¶47

nghd; yp!;l; nfhg;gpy; cs;sJ/ mij ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ rk;gtk; rk;ge;jkhf 3 vjphpfSf;Fs;Sk; nghd; ciuahly; vJt[k; eilbgwtpy;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; jhd; me;j yp!;il ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ "

¶48

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

¶49

 14.P.W.5 has deposed in support of the answer
elicited in the cross examination of investigation officer that
neither in the complaint nor in the initial statement recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he has not disclosed any person in
fact, he has specifically stated that he could find no person
inside his home. P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1, has categorically
stated that the wife of the first accused/Srinivasan, used to
visit his home. However, as his wife suspected such visit of
husband to the house of P.W.1, P.W.1 stopped coming. Till
21.10.2013 and 27.10.2013, the statement and witnesses of P.W.1
and P.W.2 is that they have not disclosed the name of the first
accused. Only on 21.10.2013, it is projected that P.W.1 has
disclosed that A1 was also in the scene. In the cross
examination, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted that till 21st,
they have not disclosed about the alleged person of
A1/Srinivasan, assumes significance.

¶50

15.It remains to be stated that when P.W.1 was
admitted to the Hospital, he was full of conscious and he had
admitted that the first accused/Srinivasan alone has accompanied
P.W.1 to the Hospital and paid the necessary fees and he has
aided for the medical treatment. However, would say that he
assumed that if the name of the Srinivasan/first accused is
dispel to the police, he may give harm to the family. The
Doctor who had given initial treatment to P.W.1, who has
examined as P.W.6. As per accident register/Ex.P9 on
19.10.2013, at around 11.00 p.m., a unknown person, with Aruval
has attacked him and he has sustained injuries and the injury
no.2 is simple in nature and injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in
nature. In the cross examination, he has admitted that under
Ex.P9/accident register, P.W.1 is fully drunk and the same is
noted as under the influence of alcohol.

¶51

16.In view of the answer elicited in the cross
examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, coupled with the answer elicited
in the cross examination of investigation officer/P.W.7 and
P.W.8, as extracted supra, I find that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
not reliable witnesses and their evidence is self contrary and
no other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution for
the alleged notice, conspiracy and involvement of the appellants
in the appeal. P.W.1 has specifically stated before
P.W.6/Doctor, that he was assaulted by unknown person at the
earliest point of time which is duly reflected in accident
register/Ex.P9.

¶52

17.Furthermore, Doctor also noted in the accident
register that P.W.1 is under the influence of alcohol. The
Ex.P1/complaint, which came into force at the relevant point of
time, accident register and initially, statement given to the
police disclosed that unknown person has attacked him only upon
the further statement of P.W.1. A1/Srinivasan was implicated

¶53

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

¶54

based upon the alleged conspiracy was in existence between A1,
A2 and A3 in making assault on P.W.1. So being the prosecution
case, however, the prosecution has failed to explain the
prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not disclosed the
same at the earliest point of time about the involvement of
first accused especially, when his name was not found in the
FIR. In fact, P.W.1 was admitted that A1 alone was admitted
P.W.1 in the hospital and saved his life as per the earlier part
of the prosecution.

¶55

18.Furthermore, though the investigation officer
alleged that the criminal conspiracy was in existence between A1
on one hand and A2 and A3 on the other hand. In the cross
examination, they have categorically stated that none of the
witnesses during his investigation, deposed regarding the
alleged criminal conspiracy stated by P.W.7, in the cross
examination assumes significance. Though P.W.8/Investigation
officer would depose that A1 has indulged in criminal conspiracy
and has plan to attack P.W.1 with the aid of A2 and A3 through
phone and he has collected the details. However, for the reasons
best known, no call details were filed before the Court.

¶56

19.In the absence of any positive evidence, being
adduced by the prosecution with regard to the alleged criminal
conspiracy of for the charge under Section 120(B) of IPC, I find
that the trial Court has erroneously convicted the first
accused with the aid of 120(B) of IPC. The essential
ingredients of charge under Section 120(B), there must be some
motive and previous enmity is said to be the motive for the
offence against P.W.1. As stated supra, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2
had deposed about any pre-existence ill motive between them and
A1, assumes significance.

¶57

20.In view of the material contradiction on material
particulars regarding involvement of A2 and A3, as spoken to by
P.W.1, at the first instance under Ex.P9/accident register and
thereafter, under Ex.P1/complaint and even thereafter, under 161
statement given to the police only after 21.10.2013, he has
implicated the A1. As stated supra, the reason for inclusion
for the name of the first accused suffers from material
contradiction and does not stand the legal scrutiny. The
alleged call details said to have been collected by the
investigation officer/P.W.8, was not marked. The non production
of alleged collected call details between A1 to A3 also creates
serious doubt in the prosecution theory.

¶58

21.Yet another point is that the material object
that was produced before the Court. It is the specific case of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Aruval used as a weapon of crime had
blood stain. Though, the investigation officer had admitted that
during his investigation, on the scene of the crime, he had

¶59

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

¶60

noticed blood stain on the clothes. However, he has not collect
and seized the same and sent for forensic department. It is
also cause serious doubt, as to the involvement of M.O.1 and
M.O.2, weapon of the crime in the alleged offence and hence, I
find that in view of the improvements made in the version of
P.W.1 and P.W.2, and the reason assigned for the inclusion of
the name of the first accused who is said to have been called by
P.W.1 through P.W.3, at the earlier instance and the first
accused having accompanied by P.W.1/injured to the hospital and
taken care of P.W.1 all along was subsequently implicated as an
accused without any positive evidence and hence, I find the
version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are unreliable and untrustworthy, the
same suffers from self contradiction, as per the statement given
at the earliest point of time as discussed supra and hence, all
is not well with the prosecution theory and there is no positive
evidence to connect the first accused with the alleged
crime, there is no positive evidence to connect there was a
criminal conspiracy between A1 in one hand and A2 and A3 on the
other hand. For the presence of A2 and A3, the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are totally inconsistent with the earlier
statement given by the police and given by the Doctor and thus,
I find that there is no positive evidence to connect the accused
with the crime.

¶61

22.In the absence of any positive evidence, to
connect the accused having nexus with the crime, I find that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt. By operation of law, the benefit of doubt
goes to the accused. Giving benefit of doubt to the
accused/appellants, they are acquitted.

¶62

23.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and
the conviction and sentence as against the appellants 1 to
3/accused in the judgment dated 11.12.2015 in S.C.No.155/2014 on
the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District are set aside. The
appellants/accused are acquitted from the charges under Section
506(i), 120(B), 460 and 326 of IPC. The fine amount, if any,
paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. The bail bonds
executed by them, shall stand terminated/discharged.

¶63

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶64

// True Copy //

¶65

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶66

AT

¶67

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

¶68

To

¶69

1. The Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶70

2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

¶71

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam.

¶72

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

¶73

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶74

6. The Inspector of Police, Bungalow Pudur Police Station, Erode District.

¶75

7. The Inspector of Police, Farland Police Station, Salem.

¶76

8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶77

Copy To

¶78

The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court, Madras – 104.

¶79

Crl.A.No.794 of 2015

¶80

SJ(CO)
RLP(01/11/2021)

¶81

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

Srinivasan v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasan v. the State by

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

Mohammed Rikas @ Rikaz Vs State by

K.Muruganandam Vs State Rep.by Its

Padma, F/45 Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Primus Analytics Ltd., Vs M/S.Abl Bio Technologies Ltd.

K.Saravanan Vs Agilandeswari

S.Sandeep Kumar, Aged 19 Years Vs State of Tamil Nadu