P.Jeevanandham Vs Mariyappan

Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.63 of 2013 dated 12.04.2017.

¶158

For Appellant:	Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy
For Respondents:	Mr.J.Thilagaraj ForR14,39,46,50,54,55,57,60,61, 63 and R1 to R12,
	R15 to R38, R40 to R42, R44,
	R47,48,51,52,53,56,58,59 and 62,64,65
	Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan for R66
	No appearance for R68
	Mr.A.Damodran
	Additional Public Prosecutor for R69
	Disd. as abated against R13, 43, 45, 49 and 67

¶159

JUDGMENT

¶160

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)

¶161

This criminal appeal has been filed by the victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.63 of 2013 dated 12.04.2017 acquitting the respondents/accused of all the charges, for the reasons stated therein.

¶162

9

¶163

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶164

CRL A No.449 of 2019

¶165

Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶166

The main contention of the appellant is that the prosecution did not examine the eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence and the judgment of the trial Court in paragraphs 19 & 20 would clearly state that the eye-witnesses, namely, Jeevanantham, Raj @ Gunduraj, Rajbabu, Selvam, Arun, Gunasekaran, Murugesan, Selvam and Selvi had died and even one of the witnesses, who was examined as PW2, has stated that he did not see the occurrence and turned hostile. But, however, the learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the observations made by the trial Court in paragraphs 19 & 20 are perverse, since majority of the eye-witnesses are still alive and therefore the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial.

¶167

In order to ascertain the fact as to whether the witnesses mentioned in paragraphs 19 & 20 of the judgment of the trial Court are still alive, this Court, by order dated 07.01.2026, directed the 69^th respondent Police to file a report regarding the witnesses who are still alive and the witnesses who had died. Today the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed the report of the Investigating Officer stating that out of 28 witnesses, 19 witnesses are alive and

¶168

10

¶169

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶170

CRL A No.449 of 2019

¶171

only 9 witnesses had died.

¶172

A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly shows that in paragraph-19, the trial Court has rendered a finding that all the 9 witnesses named therein had died, whereas the report of the Investigating Officer reveals that only 3 witnesses, namely, Selvam, Gunasekaran & Murugesan had died and the remaining 6 witnesses are still alive. Similarly, in paragraph-20, the trial Court has rendered a finding that all the 19 witnesses named therein had died, whereas the report of the Investigating Officer reveals that only 6 witnesses, namely, Panchavarnam, Perumal, Vijaya, Mayandi, Kulothungan & Subramaniyan had died and the remaining 13 witnesses are still alive. In view of the perverse finding rendered by the trial Court, without going into the merits, the judgment passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.63 of 2013 dated 12.04.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The learned trial Judge is directed to issue summons to all the witnesses who are all alive and conduct a fresh trial. Since the case in Crime No.348 of 2010 had been registered for the cause of action that arose on 08.09.2010, the learned trial Judge shall give priority and dispose of the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months. Both the parties are directed to extend their cooperation for completion of the trial as early as possible.

¶173

11

¶174

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶175

CRL A No.449 of 2019

¶176