Appellate court upholds acquittal unless trial court's findings are perverse; delayed FIR and unreliable witnesses justify non-interference.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. An injured eyewitness to the occurrence had challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.37 of 2012 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in the above appeal.

2.........

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.07.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. on the instigation of A1, A2 to A11, armed with knives, iron rods, wooden logs and sickles, with an intention to cause the death of PW1 and the deceased, attacked them indiscriminately; that both PW1 and the deceased were admitted to the hospital; that they were unconscious for two days and the deceased succumbed to the injuries two months after the occurrence; and thus, all the accused were liable for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(ii) and 307 of the IPC.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex. P1] given by PW1, an FIR [Ex. P10] in Cr.No.233 of 2010 was registered by PW15, Sub-Inspector of Police on 10.07.2010, for the major offence under Section 307 IPC and for the other allied offences. PW16 was deputed by the Superintendent of Police to conduct the investigation, as the jurisdictional Inspector of Police was on other duty. He conducted the inquest, handed over the dead body for postmortem, examined a few witnesses and thereafter handed over the investigation to PW17. PW17 took up the investigation, arrested a few accused, examined the remaining witnesses and filed the final report on 14.01.2011 against all the accused for the major offence under Section 302 of the and for other allied offences, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was made over to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.37 of 2012. The Trial Court had framed the charges under Sections 148, 341, 294-b, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC against A2 to A11 and for the offence under Sections 307 and 302 r/w 149 of the as against A1. The accused when questioned, pleaded 'not guilty'. The accused are respondents 1 to 11 in this appeal.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court found the accused not guilty of any of the offences charged against them and accordingly acquitted all the accused. It is against this judgment that the appeal is filed by the defacto complainant. Since the appellant/defacto complainant died pending appeal, his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants 2 to 6 and were permitted to prosecute the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse inasmuch as it ignored the evidence of PW2; that minor inconsistencies or contradictions would not render the prosecution case false; that even assuming that there is a flaw in the investigation, the same would not render the witnesses unreliable; and that therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel took us through the evidence of the witnesses to buttress his submissions.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and submitted that the eyewitnesses ought not to have been disbelieved by the trial Court.

5.........

(i) Though notice had been served on the respondents 1 to 11, no