AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Sidickk, J.—The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the accused before the lower Court. This appeal is preferred by
the Appellant/Complainant to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ambasamudram in C.C. No. 232 of
1989 on 21-3-1990.
The Appellant/Complainant preferred a complaint u/s 190(1)(a) of Cr. P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 183, 186 and
189 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., raising the following contentions:-
There is a civil dispute between the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and the cultivating tenants of the lands owned by the Thiruvavaduthurai
Adheenam at Kodarangulam village, Ambasamudram Taluk. Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam filed a suit in O.S. No. 124 of 1966 before the Sub
Court at Tirunelveli. The suit was decreed in favour of the Adheenam. As per the decree dated 5-8-1968, the tenants/defendants were restrained
from harvesting and removing the crops in the lands concerned in the suit before ever the Adheenam-Plaintiff got his landlord''s share. A petition in
E.A. No. 393/88 in O.S. No. 124/1966 was filed by the Adheenam for the appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of the standing
crops in the suit lands commencing from the Kar Fasli 1398 and to collect the landlord''s share. The said petition was allowed and the complainant
was appointed as Commissioner for the said purpose by the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli on 8-9-1988. The Commissioners warrant dated 8-
9-1988 was also issued in favour of the complainant for the said purpose. The Commissioner gave due notice to the tenants asking them to inform
him before proceeding with the harvest in those lands and to harvest them in his presence and to deliver without arrears the pattern paddy due to
the said Adheenam. Such a notice has been published in ""Dinamalar"" dated 19-9-1988 not by Commissioner but by S. Meenakshisundaram,
Adheenam''s Advocate. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the defendants in the above suit O.S. 124 of 1996. The other accused are actually
cultivating different lands for the Adheenam at Kadarangulam Village. The complainant visited the suit properties on different dates and some of the
tenants delivered the pattern paddy and some of the tenants evaded measuring the landlord''s share. On 11-10-1988 on information that some of
the tenants harvested the paddy from the suit lands at Kodarangulam village and that the paddy was kept in heaps in threshing floor, the
Commissioner alongwith the Inspector of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam for Dodarangulam village by name S. Krishna Pillai, Karnams of
Adheenam by name Ramiah Thevar and Ramu Thevar went to the threshing floor at about 3 P.M. The complainant was accompanied by Mr. S.
Selvaganapathy, an advocate appointed as Commissioner for the same purpose in another suit filed by the Adheenam in respect of lands in
Ekambarapuram village limits. All the accused were standing in a group. Some of them were armed with Vel sticks, aruvals and sticks. The
complainant informed them that he was the Commissioner appointed by the Court to collect the landlord''s share of pady from the threshing floor.
He also showed them the Commissioner''s warrant issued by the Court. At first he demanded the 1st accused to measure the pattern paddy due to
the landlord. But he refused to do so. The other tenants of other fields were also present there and they told the complainant that they will not
measure and deliver the landlord''s share of the paddy. As the Commissioner was asking the accused to measure the landlord''s share of the
paddy, the accused removed the entire produce kept there in bags from the threshing floor. The paddy harvested from the suit lands and kept in
the neighboring threshing floors also was unlawfully and forcibly removed by the accused. When the complainant objected to such unlawful
removal of all the paddy from the threshing floor, the accused threatened the complainant and others, who were there to assist him in his duty with
dire consequences by show of arms. As the number of accused and their men were large, the complainant could not do anything further. The
complainant ascertained the names of the accused from the, above mentioned employees of the Adheenam, who were present there. The accused
not only obstructed the complainant from the discharge of his public duty but also resisted him from taking the landlord''s share of the harvested
paddy in the suit lands in pursuance of the Commissioner''s warrant issued by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in E.A. No. 393 of 1988
in OS. No. 124 of 1966. They also held out threat of injury to the Commissioner and the other persons. As the complainant was obstructed from
discharging his duty by the accused by show of force, the complainant has felt that it is his duty to prefer the present criminal complaint. He has
submitted his report to the Court of learned Subordinate Judge Tirunelveli on 27-10-1988 and sought the oral approval of the Court. Hence the
delay in laying the complaint. The acts of the accused amount to offences under Sections 147, 148, 183 and 189 of I.P.C. read with 149 of I.P.C
The complainant is a public servant within the definition of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
Copies of the complaint were furnished to the accused. The charges under Sections 148 and 506 Part II of I.P.C. were alone framed and read
over to the accused by the Magistrate and they, the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried. In proof of the charges the
Appellant/Complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and filed the documents marked as'' Exs. Pl to P4. No material object was marked.
When questioned in respect of the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses u/s 313 of Cr. P.C,
the Respondents/Accused denied their complicity in the crime. The accused did not choose to examine any witness on their side.
On consideration of the materials placed, the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ambasamudram found the accused not guilty of the offences u/s 148
and 506 Part II of I.P.C. and acquitted all the accused u/s 248(1) of Cr. P.C. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal the complainant has come
up in appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and the learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused the point that arises for
determination is as to whether the Appellant/Complainant has proved his ease beyond all reasonable doubt and as to whether the
Respondents/Accused are guilty of the charges under Sections 148 and 506 Part II of IPC and if so, what is the sentence to be imposed on the
accused.
Point:- It is the specific case of the Respondent/Complainant at the end of Para 9 of the complaint, that when he was appointed by the Sub
Court at Tirunelveli as the Commissioner in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 124 of 1966, he told the accused to measure the paddy
due to the landlord and they refused to do so, and they removed the paddy, and when the complainant objected to the removal of all the paddy
from the threshing floor room, the accused threatened the complainant and others who were there to assist him in his duty with dire consequences
by show of arms. The complainant would state further in Para 6 of his complaint mat the accused not only obstructed the complainant from the
discharge of his public duty as the Court Commissioner but also resisted him from taking the share of the landlord in the harvested paddy in the suit
lands in pursuance of the Commissioner''s warrant issued to him. So the gist of the complaint is the threat of the accused given to the
Appellant/Complainant and the obstruction made by the accused to the complainant for the discharge of his duty as the Commissioner. These
features in the complaint were not at all spoken to by the Appellant/Complainant examined as P.W.I Arumugam. His evidence before the lower
Court is extracted here in extenso for better appreciation of his case. His testimony in the Chief Examination as well as in the cross examination
reads as follows in Tamil:-
Thus a careful scrutiny of the oral evidence of the Appellant/Complainant examined as P.W.I Arumugam would disclose mat he was never
threatened nor intimidated with arms by the accused, who only refused to deliver a portion of the harvested paddy. He even candidly admitted
during his cross examination mat nobody has scolded him and nobody has threatened him. It is not the testimony of P.W.I Arumugam mat the
accused proclaimed mat they would kill him and others if they attempted to remove a portion of the harvested paddy. Per contra it is his testimony
that a larger number of people were there for harvesting the paddy and weapons like aruval and kambu were essential for harvesting the paddy.
Therefore the evidence of P.W.I Arumugam will not in any way prove his case mat the accused intimidated him and threatened to cause the death
or grievous hurt and thereby committed the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 148 and 506 Part II of IPC.
P.W.I Arumugam did not whisper a word that himself and others were threatened and intimidated with arms by the accused or the accused
proclaimed to kill them with the arms they had in their hands. That being so, the employees of Adheenam, who accompanied P.W. 1 Arumugam
and who were examined as P.W.2 Krishna Pillai, P.W.3 Baiasubramaniam and P.W.4 Subramaniam, would say in their evidence with uniform
voice mat the accused refused to deliver a portion of the harvested paddy towards the share of the landlord and in-spite of their refusal if P.W.I
Arumugam and others tried to take away a portion of the harvested paddy, then there would be a murder.
Such was not the version spoken to by the complainant himself examined as P.W.I Arumugam in this case. Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 4
about the threat to kill that uttered by the accused is only an afterthought and so the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 4 is not entitled to any credibility in this
case.
P.W.5 Mayandi Thevar is none other than another employee of the Adheenam. He fairly conceded during his cross examination that the
accused refused to measure the share of the landlord in the harvested paddy and thereafter they came back and apart from this nothing happened.
His testimony in his cross examination on this aspect in Tamil runs as follows :-
Therefore the evidence of P.W.5 Mayandi Thevar who is one of the employees of Adheenam for whom the landlord''s share of the paddy has to
be measured by the accused and who accompanied P.Ws. 1 to 4, did not support the version of the complainant and instead his evidence would
support the defence theory that the accused did not indulge in any threat or intimidation to cause grievous hurt by forming an unlawful assembly. So
the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5 will not satisfactorily establish the case of the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused herein are
guilty of the offences under Sections 148 and 506 Part II of I.P.C.
Even admitting that the accused were armed with weapons like aruval, and sticks, kambu and they raised these weapons during the course of
the wordy quarrel, it cannot be stated mat such action on the part of the accused would amount to criminal intimidation punishable u/s 506 Part II
of I.P.C.
In such a quarrel between the servants of the landlord and the tenants like the accused such things like the possession of aruval and sticks which
are required for the purpose of harvesting die paddy, would occur without any one intending to intimidate seriously the other, and this intimidation
by holding die weapons like aruval and sticks in the hands of die accused cannot be deliberate one and will not amount to an offence u/s 506 Part
II of I.P.C. against the accused This view gains support from a decision of our Madras High Court reported in Periamalm Swamy v.
Poosariambalam (1969 L.W.'' (Crl.) 202), wherein it was held as follows:-
In die course of a wordy quarrel, if die accused raised the spade which he was already having for die purpose of diverting water and told die
witness P.W.I, that he would kill him, it cannot be stated that it will amount to criminal intimidation. In such a quarrel, such things would, as a
matter of course, occur without anyone intending to intimidate seriously the other. His intimidation cannot be deliberate one and an offence u/s 506
Part II of I.P.C. against die accused cannot be sustained,
There are no substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court, In ah appeal against die acquittal
strong and convincing reasons must exist for interference. In die present case no such strong and convincing reasons exist for interference. There is
no evidence worth its name on record to come to die conclusion that the Respondents/Accused formed an unlawful assembly and force was used
by any member of such an unlawful assembly or die accused threatened and intimidated P.W.I Ammugam and others with weapons to cause
grievous hurt or death to men. There is absolutely no assurance of me guilt of die accused from die evidence on record and therefore die order of
acquittal is not liable to be interfered with nor disturbed. Considering the above facts and circumstances of die case, I am to hold diat this appeal is
devoid of merits and die same is dismissed and die order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ambasamudram in C.C. No.
232 of 1989 on 21-3-1990 is confirmed, and consequently I answer this point as against the Appellant/Complainant.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ambasamudram in PC. No. 232 of
1989 on 21-3-1990 is confirmed.