The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a de facto complainant against an acquittal order. The Court held that a revision court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate court, noting the trial was properly concluded based on evidence.
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.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM:
The Honourable MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.11774 of 2018
Seenuvasan
...Petitioner/Appellant/ De facto Complainant
-Vs-
1.Thandavarayan 2.Ragothu 3.Suresh 4.Ezhumalai ...Respondents/Respondents/ Accused Nos.1 to 4
Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for records made in the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Villupuram, dated 06.07.2018 made in C.A.No.41 of 2016 and punish the Respondents according to law and allow the present Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopala Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajesh
1/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
O R D E R
When the case came up for hearing on 21.09.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 05.10.2023.
Petitioner that he was the de facto Complainant and P.W.1 before the Trial Court, learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur. As per his submission, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
1st Respondent in this Criminal Revision Case is his brother. There had been a civil dispute between brothers regarding the agricultural lands. The dispute was pending before the Civil Court. After due trial, the Civil Court granted a decree in favour of the Revision Petitioner. Subsequent to that decree, the Revision Petitioner had purchased a motor pump set and fixed it in the common well, wherein the 1st Respondent also has a share. Subsequently, he came to know that his motor pump set was stolen. He received information from P.W.3 that, on instigation by his brother, the 1st Respondent in this Criminal Revision Case, the sons of 1st Respondent, Respondents 2 to 4, had removed the motor pump set purchased by the Revision Petitioner, which was fixed on the common well.
himself had deposed as witness as P.W.1. As per his evidence, he had information from P.W.3 that the sons of 1st Respondent, Respondents 2 to 4, along with some other people, had placed the motor pump set in the workshop belonging to P.W.3. P.W.3 is alleged to have shared the information with the de facto Complainant/P.W.1. P.W.1 had given a complaint to the Kandachipuram Police Station. Based on the complaint,
the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandachipuram Police Station, had not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
registered FIR. Instead, he had registered CSR (Community Service Register). Since the earlier Investigation Officer had not proceeded with the investigation, the de facto Complainant filed Crl.O.P.No.14700 of 2009 before this Court and obtained direction against the then Sub-Inspector of Police, by which the investigation was transferred from the then SubInspector of Police to another Sub-Inspector of Police. The subsequent Sub-Inspector of Police took up the investigation, registered a case and recovered the motor pump set from the workshop of P.W.3. On completion of the investigation, he laid the final report against the first respondent herein as A1 for the offences under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and against the first respondent's sons as A2 to A4 for the offences under Section 379 of IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur, in C.C.No.69 of 2010.
entered appearance. They were furnished with copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
Defence, the learned Trial Judge had framed charges against A1 for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
offences under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC and against A2 to A4 for the offences under Section 379 of IPC.
judgment dated 11.12.2015 in C.C.No.69 of 2010, acquitted A1 to A4 from the charges.
Judge, Villupuram, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Villupuram, as Crl.A.No.41 of
5/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
The learned Trial Judge had on proper appreciation of evidence arrived at the logical conclusion that the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 is not found to be inspiring confidence of the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge in his assessment of evidence and giving reasons had clearly stated that, as per the evidence of P.W.1/de facto Complainant, it is based on hearsay. The complaint given by P.W.1 does not state clearly whether the motor pump set was removed by A-1 to A-4 or he has doubt regarding their involvement. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the P.W.3 before the learned Trial Judge had informed him on 07.09.2007 and that he had preferred the complaint on 08.09.2007, without giving any doubt against the Respondents. Therefore, the then Sub-Inspector of Police had registered the complaint only as CSR. Subsequently, it was registered as FIR. Only after direction from this Court in the Criminal Original Petition against the successor Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered FIR and proceeded with the investigation. After recording the statements of witnesses and after recovering the motor pump set from the workshop belonging to P.W.3 under recovery Mahazar, he laid the final report before the learned Trial Judge. The earlier Investigation Officer was also examined as witness in this case. He had in his evidence stated that during his investigation, he
came to know that it was not a true case. Therefore, he closed it as mistake https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
of fact. The subsequent Investigation Officer is alleged to have recovered the pump set from the workshop of P.W.3. The only witnesses in this case
are P.W.3 and P.W.5. The rest of the witnesses had turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had on assessment of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5, commented that if the information shared by P.W.3 is true, what prevented the de facto Complainant from stating those facts in the complaint. Further, the recovery Mahazar marked before the Court differs regarding the description of the motor pump set as stated by de facto Complainant/P.W.1 in his evidence. There are loopholes in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had raised suspicion and granted the benefit of doubt to A1 to A4, who are none other than the brother and brother's sons and acquitted A1 to A4.
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
Appellate Judge shall not disturb the finding. Even if the learned Appellate Judge on the same set of evidence, arrives at the contrary conclusion, this is because the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge based on proper appreciation of evidence is given due weightage as the learned Trial Judge had the benefit of observing the demeanour of witness, that advantage is not available to the Appellate Court. In the light of the said proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment of the learned Appellate Judge shall not be faulted. Nothing is found perverse from the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in acquitting A1 to A4 from the charges under Section 379 r/w 34 of IPC in C.C.No.69 of 2010.
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
not been disclosed. Subsequently, FIR was registered after 17 days. The motor pump set was recovered from the workshop of P.W.3, in which the Mahazar was recorded it and marked before the Trial Court did not contain the specific details of the missing pump set. In that circumstance, the earlier Investigation Officer, who had proceeded with the investigation, has closed it as mistake of fact. Whereas the subsequent Investigation Officer had laid the final report, arraying the brother and brother's sons as A1 to A4. In the light of those facts, the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge cannot be found to be perverse.
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
to A4. If it is remanded, it amounts to harassment of A1 to A4, who stood trial. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is found to be with a purpose to harass the brother, 1st Respondent and brother's sons, Respondents 2 to 4, for which the Court cannot be used. If it is accepted, it amounts to abuse of process of law.
devoid of merits. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.10.2023
cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order
11/12
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
cda
To
Crl.R.C.No.1004 of 2018
12.10.2023
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision court can re-appreciate evidence recorded in a completed trial where the trial court acquitted the accused.
Whether the acquittal of the respondents based on doubt and assessment of evidence is a fit case for interference in revision.
Seenuvasan
1. Thandavarayan
2. Ragothu
3. Suresh
4. Ezhumalai
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
