S.Anthony Samy vs The State & Ors

On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.351 of 2012 and after completing the

investigation, filed a charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.291 of 2015

and was tried by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 452 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act against 53 accused, the respondents 2 to 54 herein. On behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses

were examined, 10 exhibits and 6 material objects were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances

appearing against them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same. No witness was examined on behalf of the

accused. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 11.09.2017, has acquitted the accused, challenging which, the defacto complainant, the petitioner

herein, has filed the present appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with Special Leave Petition.

Heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first

respondent and Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 54.

It is a trite that Special Leave to Appeal is not automatic and the same can be granted by this Court only if this Court is satisfied that there are

prima facie materials to show that the judgment of acquittal suffers from irregularities and illegalities warranting interference. It is the case of the

defacto complainant that in the mid night of 03.11.2012, i.e., around 01.00 a.m., 53 persons belonging to his Village came to his house and

ransacked the house and cattle shed and caused damage to the properties. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that any of the accused had

assaulted him or his family members and, therefore, the accused were not charged for even under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The

accused were only charged for unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, criminal intimidation and damage to the properties. The Trial Court had found

grave infirmities in the very foundation of the case that was projected by the petitioner/defacto complainant. It is the case of the defacto

complainant that the property in question is a pathway and that it belongs to him and that the accused had trespassed into the property to illegally

evict him. However, in the cross-examination of the defacto complainant, the accused were able to establish that the civil dispute with regard to the

property ended in favour of the accused and against the defacto complainant. Therefore, the Trial Court was of the view that the defacto

complainant had strong motive to implicate the accused and all the family members including women and children in order to keep them away from

executing the civil Court decree against him. Motive is a double edged weapon. In this case, the accused were able to satisfactorily show that the

defacto complainant had a strong motive against them, inasmuch as he having lost in the Civil Courts had set up a false case as if 53 members of

the accused family had trespassed and caused damage to the belongings of the defacto complainant. It is seen that the First Information Report in

this case itself had reached the jurisdictional Court belatedly. Of course, it is not a Thumb Rule that just because the First Information Report had

reached the Court belatedly, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. In the facts of this case, it is the assertion of the accused that the

names of the accused have been included subsequently with a help of the voters list.

Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this plea of the accused cannot be true, because some of the accused were

juveniles and their names would not have appeared in the voters list. In this case, had there been any juvenile, the Trial would have been split up as

against the juvenile and tried before the Juvenile Court. This has not been done and, therefore, this Court cannot infer that some of the accused

were juveniles. That apart, in the cross examination of P.W.1, he was not able to satisfactorily say as to when the complaint that formed the basis

of the First Information Report was prepared or who was the Scribe of the complaint. All these infirmities had weighed with the Trial Court for

acquitting the accused. On a reading of the Trial Court judgment, this Court does not find any serious infirmity or illegality in the appreciation of

evidence by the Trial Court warranting interference. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal and accordingly, the Special Leave

Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Crl.A.(MD)SR.No.31262 of 2017 stands rejected.

However, it is seen that there are disputes between the family of the defacto complainant and the accused and the dismissal of this Special

Leave Petition is not carte blanche for the accused to take advantage of and create any further problems to the defacto complainant. It must be

remembered that the accused have been acquitted on benefit of doubt and not that they are totally innocent. In other words, they have been

acquitted for lack of evidence only. Hence, any finding by the Sessions Court with respect to the land dispute will have no bearing in the Civil

proceedings between the defacto complainant and the accused. If the accused attempt any aggression on the defacto complainant, the first

respondent police shall take immediate action in this regard.