Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2684
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Natarajan
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram & Others
Crl.R.C. No. 1864 of 2007
Decided on : 29-07-2013
For the Petitioner:R. Balakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, C. Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor, R2 to R6, M. Jagadeesan, Advocate.
The importance of material evidence and credible witness testimony in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 323, 506(ii) - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 323, 506(ii) and their application in the case. The court emphasized the importance of material evidence in proving the prosecution's case and highlighted the significance of eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of material evidence and the contradictory statements of witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, P.W.2, was assaulted by the accused while he was riding his motorcycle. The accused, including the victim's wife and brothers-in-law, intercepted him on the road and attacked him with deadly weapons. The trial court acquitted all the accused due to lack of evidence and witness contradictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution case lacked material evidence and witness testimony was contradictory, leading to the acquittal of all the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimony and the presence of material evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of material evidence and the contradictory statements of witnesses, which weakened the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and confirmed the acquittal of all the accused.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
1. The defacto complainant / P.W.2 had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam, Villupuram District, stating that on 07.06.2003 at about 08.30 p.m. while he was proceeding on his TVS-50 motorcycle on the Royadupakkam Road, the accused 1 to 5 had intercepted him and attacked him with deadly weapons jointly and hence, the Inspector of Police had registered a criminal case in Crime No.259 of 2003, against the accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Sections, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of IPC and against the fifth accused for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 506(ii)) of IPC. The Inspector of Police had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The said case has been referred to the Sessions Court, wherein the case has been numbered as S.C.No.66 of 2007.
2. The prosecution has listed nine witnesses and annexed seven documents and no material evidence was marked. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and four documents were marked. After rceipt of the charge sheet, all the accused pleaded not guilty and hence, the case was proceeded with.
3. P.W.1, Purushothaman had adduced evidence that his brother Natarajan was married to A-5 i.e., Sheela Devi around 15 years ago, but the spouses had not lived together. The other accused are blood brothers of A-5. He further adduced evidence that A-5 and P.W.1 quarreled frequently. On 07.06.2003, at about 08.30 p.m., he had been informed by one Sekar, Supervisor that he had admitted his brother at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry as he had sustained cut injuries. He deposed that he had rushed to the hospital, wherein he was told by P.W.2 that his wife and his brothers have inflicted cut injuries on him by use of sharp edged weapons and hence, P.W.1 had lodged a complaint to the police station.
4. P.W.2 had adduced evidence that he was working at Aurovil as a parcel officer. On 24.01.1992, he had married A-5 and she gave birth to one male and one female child. They quarreled frequently amongst themselves after the marriage. A-5 has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Pondicherry. As per the Family Court proceedings, he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. Thereafter, A-5 had demanded a share from his landed property and due to this, she picked quarrels with him frequently. On 07.06.2003, he had collected a sum of Rs.53,000/- from one Damodaran Pillai of Royadupakkam Village and while he was proceeding on his TVS-50 towards Pondicherry and on nearing the place of Santhikulam, all the accused intercepted him and assaulted him with aruval, hammer and sticks. A-1 Chakravarthy had inflicted injuries on him on his head and behind his shoulder. A-2, Manohar had inflicted injuries on him on his shoulder. A-3, Amudhu had inflicted injuries on him on his head, A-4, Kabilan had inflicted injuries on him behind his head and A-5 assaulted him with a stick on his left hand joint and she had instructed her brothers to pour kerosene and set fire to him and hand over the kerosene can. At that time, a motorcyclist, who was proceeding on the same road, noticed the incident and admitted him in the hospital. He had been hospitalized from 07.06.2003 to 21.06.2003. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at Miot Hospital on 26.06.2003 to 02.07.2003. His brother P.W.1 had lodged a complaint regarding the incident on 08.06.2003 at Kottakuppam Police Station.
5. P.W.3, Sekar had adduced evidence that he did not know about the said occurrence and he had not admitted P.W.1 at the hospital and turned hostile. P.W.4. had adduced evidence that A-2 and A-5 are the spouses. He further deposed that the police had conducted an enquiry at the occurrence place and he had signed in the observation mahazar. A5 also signed the same mahazar. P.W.6, a medical officer had adduced evidence that he had examined P.W.2 and certified that P.W.2 had sustained deep cut inju
