Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43584
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, J
Kathirvelu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Manokaran
For the Respondents: R. Murthi
Material contradictions between a complainant's initial statement, medical records, and police statements, which remain unexplained, create reasonable doubt, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Jurisprudence - Benefit of Doubt - Existence of material contradictions between the initial complaint, medical records (Accident Register), and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the number of assailants and the nature of the attack, without satisfactory explanation by the prosecution, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. (Para 10, 11, 13)
(B) Appreciation of Evidence - Perversity of Finding - Conviction based solely on medical evidence while ignoring glaring contradictions in ocular statements is perverse and warrants interference by the appellate court. (Para 7, 14)
Issues: Whether the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the number of accused and the nature of the incident were sufficient to entitle the appellants to the benefit of doubt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual summary of the assault case and trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contending the perversity of evidence versus the prosecution's reliance on medical corroboration. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. impact of material contradictions in statements and medical records on the credibility of the prosecution. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused due to perverse appreciation of evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
J U D G M E N T
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the Judgment dated 25.08.2020 made in S.C.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Namakkal.
2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.242 of 2015 against the appellants and one another for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 323 IPC @ 294(b), 324 and 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the offences involved in this case are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Namakkal and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.93 of 2018 and after establishment of the Special Court, made over to the Special Court for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Namakkal. The learned Sessions Judge after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the first accused/A1 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 323 read with 34 IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act and as against second accused/A2 for the offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/St (POA) Act.
3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial before the trial Court, totally 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.13 and no material object was exhibited.
4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.
5. On conclusion of trial after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge, not found the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and thereby acquitted them from the said charges. However, found the first accused/A1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 IPC and 323 IPC read with 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC; to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC read with 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also found the second accused/A2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 324 IPC read with 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC; to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, both the accused have filed the present appeal before this Court.
6. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants and the defacto co
