Eyewitness testimony from the injured party, especially in communal conflict cases, holds substantial evidential value, even amidst procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

These appeals are directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.96 of 2016, dated 08.10.2024 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the injured is the President of the North Thalaiyuthu Panchayat and belongs to the Hindu Arunthathiyar Community. As a result, many of the ward members of the Panchayat Board were displeased with her. She is staying away from her office and would travel there by auto. While being so, on 13.06.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., after finishing her work, she returned home in an auto bearing Registration No.TN-72-AC-4158, which was driven by one Valathi, along with one Sarpudin. Upon reaching her village, the accused persons, armed with sickles and wooden logs, way-laid the auto and indiscriminately attacked the injured/complainant, while the auto driver and Sarpudin attempted to shout for help but were intimidated by the accused. As a result, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the injured was taken to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where she was in a critical, dying condition. Her dyding declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.

3. Based on the complaint, respondent registered an FIR in Cr.No.213 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022. The investigation revealed that all the accused individuals belong to a different community, while the injured belongs to the SC/ST community. As a result, the case was transferred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed, charging the accused with offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court took cognizance and charged accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and accused Nos.5 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no document was produced. The prosecution produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.5.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and acquitted them. A7 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and A8 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x)of SC/ST Act.

6. A1, A4, A5, A6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentence