This criminal appeal against acquittal was dismissed due to the appellant's non-appearance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence occurred in a public place and found no perversity in the trial court's decision to extend the benefit of doubt regarding injuries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
Mr.Ahamadulla
... Appellant
Versus
1.Mr.Koteeswaran Inspector of Police.
2.Mr.Senthil Vinayagam Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattumannar Koil Police Station, Cuddalore District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C., against
the Judgment of acquittal passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil in C.C.No.51 of 2012 dated 16.02.2015.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The complainant in a private complaint filed under Section 294(b),
323 and 324 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil by judgment dated 16.02.2015.
that:
On 07.10.2009, there was bye-election for the Ward No.3 of Lalpet Panchayat. On the day of elections, there has been clashes between the persons belonging to two political parties, namely, National League and Manidhaneya Makkal Katchi. The complainant belongs to the National League. Whileso, during the entire process, the 1st respondent who was the then Inspector of Police and the 2nd respondent who was the SubInspector of Police in Kattumannarkoil Police Station, conducted themselves in a biased manner in favour of people belonging to Manidhaneya Makkal Katchi and did not take any action whatsoever on
the erring members of the Manidhaneya Makkal Katchi. After the
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
elections were over, in the evening, illegally the respondents raided the houses and misbehaved with the womenfolk in the house by using unparliamentary and abusive languages and threatened them. Thereafter pulled out the complainant and the other witnesses subjected them to physical torture before remanding them. At the time of remand itself the injuries on the persons namely PW1 and other witnesses were noted by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the private complaint.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
circumstances on record, the respondents/accused denied the same as false. Subsequently, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents/accused. However, during the cross-examination, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
time of remand, however, held that PW1 and the other witnesses in the box while deposing totally denied of any injury in the clashes, whereas, in their own complaint which is marked as Ex.D2, have alleged the other group of persons having attacked them and that may have suffered injuries. Therefore, the trial Court found that even though the injuries have been proved, it is doubtful whether it has been inflicted by the respondents/accused or whether the injuries have occurred during the clashes. On the said ground, the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and proceeded to decide the appeal.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
performing their official duty when two groups have clashed pursuant to the elections, unnecessarily the respondents 1 and 2 who were the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police on duty in the jurisdictional Police Station have been prosecuted with a vendata just because they performed their duty without fear or favour. This apart, he would submit that PW1 and the other witnesses belonging to their party themselves have given a complaint in which they have alleged that the unkonwn persons belonging to Manidhaneya Makkal Katchi have caused injuries to them in the clash. Now in the present complaint, and in the deposition, PW1 says that in the clash absolutely there was no injury to him. The same itself causes grave doubt and therefore, the trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
acquittal cannot upturn the same unless the same is perverse view or impossible view. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and therefore, the same cannot be upturned in an appeal against acquittal. Thus, I find no merits in this appeal.
02.02.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssn
To
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
ssn
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
Crl.A.No.251 of 2015
02.02.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the acquittal of the respondents since the ingredients of the public place offence were not satisfied.
Whether the benefit of doubt extended by the trial court regarding the manner in which injuries were caused warrants overturning the acquittal in an appeal.
Ahamadulla
Koteeswaran
Senthil Vinayagam
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
