AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—This criminal revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4 in CC.No.4/2005 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul.
The learned Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul in CC. No. 4/2005 by order dated 24.7.2006 acquitted the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 from
the charges under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and the revision petitioners/A3 and A4 from the charges under Sections 342 and 506(ii)
of IPC.
In the revision preferred by the 2nd respondent herein/the defacto complainant in Crl.RP. No. 33/2007, learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Dindigul by order dated 12.12.2008 set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court with the
directions to reconsider the evidence both oral and documentary, to receive additional evidence if necessary and dispose of the matter afresh,
according to law.
The case of the Prosecution was that there was a dispute between PW.1 Jesus Augustin, the defacto complainant/the 2nd respondent herein
and the revision petitioners/ A1 to A4 with regard to conducting Cable TV Network; that on 10.9.2004 at 11.00 a.m. in N. Panchampatti-
Chinnalapatti Main Road near Madha Koil Siluvai Thinnai, when PW.1 was coming by walk, the revision petitioners/A1 to A4, intercepted him
with weapons viz. aruval and iron rod and A1 assaulted him with an iron rod on his lower part on the back side and chest on the right side; that at
that time, PW.2 Gnanaboopathi intervened and he was assaulted by A2 on his left knee with an iron rod; that the revision petitioners/A1 to A4
armed with aruval threatened PW.1 uttering that if PW.1 prevented them from doing Cable TV Network, he would face the consequences; that
thereafter, PW.1 went to the Chinnalapatti Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complainant to PW.6, the Head Constable attached to the said Police
Station; that on receipt of Ex.P1, PW.6 registered a case in Cr. No. 252/2004 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and prepared the
printed First Information Report Ex.P5 and sent P Ws.1 and 2 to the Dindigul Government Hospital for treatment along with a requisition; that
PW.5 the Doctor attached to the said Hospital on 10.9.2004 at 1.50 p.m. gave treatment to PW.1 and PW.2 and issued wound certificates Ex.P
3 and P4 and opined that the injuries caused on P Ws.1 and 2 are simple injuries; that at 15.00 hours on the same day, PW.6 went to the place of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and a rough sketch Ex.P6 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and
sent the documents to PW.7, the Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station; that PW.7 conducted further investigation and on receipt
of wound certificates Ex.P3 and P4 in respect of PW.1 and 2, after examining the witnesses, the Doctor and recording their statements and after
completing investigation, filed the final report against the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and the revision
petitioners/A3 and A4 under Sections 341 and 506(ii) of IPC.
The case was taken on file in CC. No. 4/2005 by the Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul and necessary charges were framed. In order to
substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses (P Ws.1 to 7) and also relied on
Exs.P1 to P6.
On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances
found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.
The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the revision
petitioners/A1 to A4 not guilty and acquitted them on the following grounds:
a. The Prosecution has failed to give explanation for not examining the other partners of the Cable TV Network.
b. PW.1 had deposed that he and PW.2 went in a Car to the Government Hospital, Dindigul for treatment after giving a report in the Chinnalapatti
Police Station, whereas PW.5, the Doctor has stated that one Soosaimanickam brought PW.1 to the Hospital and the said Soosaimanickam has
not been examined which throws suspicion on the case of the Prosecution.
c. The father of PW.1 was employed in the Police Department, but PW.4 a witness to the observation mahazar denies knowledge about it which
also raises a considerable doubt about the veracity of PW.4''s evidence.
d. Though there were independent witnesses available, only the interested witnesses were examined and no reliance can be placed on the
interested witnesses P Ws.1 to 4.
e. There is an addition in the 161 statement of PW.1 and PW.2 and there is no explanation for such an addition and interpolation.
f. The evidence of PW.6 disclosed that in the First Information Report, there was no mention about the accused armed with weapons, when they
intercepted PW.1
g. No weapon was seized by PW.7, the Sub Inspector of Police, the Investigating Officer in this case.
The trial court acquitted all the accused holding that the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. In the revision preferred by
the 2nd respondent herein/the defacto complainant as against the acquittal of the revision petitioners/A1 to A4, the lower appellate court allowed
the revision on the ground that the trial court ignored the material evidence and overlooked the evidence of P Ws.1 and 2 who are the eye
witnesses and remanded the matter to the trial court with the directions as referred to above. Aggrieved over the same, this criminal revision
petition is filed by the revision petitioners/A1 to A4.
This Court heard the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.
Mr. A. Mohammed Yusuf, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that none of the grounds warranted remand and the
lower appellate court has directed the trial court to receive additional evidence which suffers from serious legal infirmity and therefore, the order of
remand passed by the lower appellate court is unsustainable. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court reported in 2008 17 SCC 662 Raj Kumar Khemka and Anr. v. State of UP and Anr. in support of his contentions.
On the other hand, Mr. A. Hariharan, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/the defacto complainant contended that the material
evidence placed on record has been overlooked by the trial court and the lower appellate court was justified in remanding the matter to the trial
court for fresh consideration of the evidence on record. The learned Counsel referred to a catena of decisions in support of his contentions that
when the material evidence is overlooked by the trial court and the accused is acquitted on faulty reasoning and lack of judicial approach, the
Revisional Court has got all jurisdiction to set aside the said order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 4583 Ram
Briksh Singh and Ors. v. Ambika Yadav and Anr. and Ayodhya Dube and Others Vs. Ram Sumer Singh, and the decisions of this Court reported
in 2006-2-MLJ-Crl-849 Mary v. State by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kancheepuram and A. Somu Thevar Vs. Sivakumar and
Another, .
In the decision reported in AIR-2004-SC-4583 cited supra, the Honourable Supreme Court held that when certain material evidence is
overlooked by the trial court and the accused is acquitted on such faulty reasoning, then it only leads to manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of
justice and in the said view of the matter, the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
In the present case, the trial court has failed to consider the evidence of the eye witnesses P Ws.1 and 2 in a right perspective manner and has
considered the immaterial points such as addition in 161 statement of the witnesses which is totally unwarranted. Further, without giving a finding as
to the veracity of the eye witnesses, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The principle stated in the decisions cited
supra squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Since the trial court has passed an order of acquittal overlooking the
material evidence, the lower appellate court was right in setting aside the order of acquittal and remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh
consideration. However, it is not the case of the either parties that the additional evidence would be necessary for rendering a verdict in this case. It
is well settled that the discretion of the court should not be exercised to fill up gaps or lacunae and in the absence of any such prayer for reception
of additional evidence, no such fresh evidence could be received.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed with the above observations. It is made clear that the trial court shall dispose of the
matter, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any
observations made by this Court and the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC) Dindigul, except the observations made in respect of
reception of additional evidence.