This is a revision which has been preferred against the acquittal by the Judicial Sub-Magistrate, Kiranur, in C.C. No. 638 of 1956.

The case for the prosecution was that on 20th May, 1956, at about 7-30 a.m., near Mothudayanpatti, the accused armed with sticks, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting and causing hurt to Armugham Solagar (P.W. 1) and his men and in pursuance of that common object, the accused committed the offence of rioting and in the course of the rioting injuries were caused to P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6.

This is a police prosecution and in support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined. Out of these 13 witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5,6, 8,9 and 13 are eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the injured persons. P.W. 9 is a servant of P.W. 7, and P.W. 13 turned hostile.

The case for the accused was as follows: Accused 1 to 14 and 16, stated that they did not beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6. Accused 15 stated that he did not instigate the other accused to beat P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6.

On behalf of the accused, three witnesses were examined and their evidence has been summarised by the Sub-Magistrate in paragraph 15 of his judgment as follows:

“D.W. 1 ‘s paternal uncle’s son Nanjan alias Ramasami Thetenandar died on Saturday, 6th Vaigasi, in his house at Kilayur. D.W. i’s house is opposite Nanjan’s house. On Saturday night D.W. 1 slept on the pial of Nanjan’s house. On Sunday morning 2½ naligais before daybreak P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and some others came to Nanjan’s house to commit theft of Nanjan’s properties. D.W. 1 took a stick from the thatti and beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 5 and 6; D.W 2 who had come to his sister’s house at Kilayur came to Nanjan’s house on hearing noise. On Sunday morning D.Ws. I and 3 saw P.Ws. I to 3, 5 and 6 going in a cart to Udayalipatti from one Sivasami’s house.”

The learned Sub-Magistrate acquitted the accused and hence this revision.

There can be no doubt that the acquittal by the learned Sub-Magistrate cannot at all be supported. In fact, his conclusion appears to be thoroughly perverse and devoid of any reasoning. It does not flow from the evidence. The occurrence has been spoken to by the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 ; out of them, P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the injured persons and for which medical certificates are forthcoming. P.W. 4, Dr. Srinivasan, has been examined. In fact, the learned Magistrate himself states that the can be no doubt that P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 received injuries. The prosecution has also put forward adequate motive for the commission of the offence. Information of the offence has been given of this rioting and the police have investigated the case and put up the charge-sheet. Only one of the witnesses examined out of the category of eye-witnesses has not supported the prosecution case ; the others have spoken to the main facts set out in the charge-sheet. The names of P.Ws. 9 and 13 are mentioned in the first information report as eye-witnesses. It is only the name of P.W. 8 that has not been mentioned in it. The allegation that he is a servant of P.W. 7 has also been denied. Turning to the accused, the names of all the 15 accused are mentioned in the first information report only the name of accused 16 is not mentioned. In other words, we have got a volume of evidence in support of the prosecution story.

I have already reproduced the evidence of the three defence witnesses as summarised by the Sub-Magistrate. One moment’s reflection will show that whatever might be the grounds for acquitting the accused, it cannot certainly be on the strength of the defence evidence that the case has got to be thrown out. In fact, the learned Sub-Magistrate himself has not pretended to do so on account of the defence evidence. He has not even considered the defence evidence and the value to be attached to that evidence. The reasons given by the Sub-Magistrate consists of a series of cliches which inexperienced Sub-M