Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 783 (MAD)

Tmt. Ushadevi v. Sri S. N. Arumugam Pillai

2002-08-08

A.K.RAJAN

body2002
Judgment :- The appeal is against the acquittal on a private complaint. 2. The case of the appellant is that, she was a correspondent in a school, which was situated in the land leased out by the respondent herein. There was a civil suit pending between the parties. While so, on 4.8.1991 at 12.00 noon, the respondent forcibly demolished the compound wall of the school. Therefore, she preferred a private complaint to the police on the very same day. But it was not registered. Thereafter, the appellant gave a telegram to the Commissioner of Police. Since no action was taken on the complaint, she filed a private complaint before the Court under Sections 448, 449, 452, 427, 354 I.P.C and Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. Notice was sent to the respondent and copied were served under Section 204 Cr.P.C. 3. To prove the case against the respondent/accused, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked and M.O.1 was produced on the side of the appellant. 4. The complaint was taken on file in C.C.No. 133 of 1992 and charges were framed against the accused/respondent under Sections 448, 451 and 506(ii) IPC. According to P.W.1, he has stated that they were running a school in the land of the respondent, which was taken on lease and that on 4.8.1991 at about noon the respondent along with 10 to 15 persons trespassed into the school and forcibly demolished the compound wall. When it was objected to P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1, the respondent did not heed his request and also did not obey the order of the Court and threatened the witnesses that he will kill them. Thereafter the respondent chased P.W.1 and she went inside the room and locked the door. The respondent hit the door by saying that he will remove the saree of P.W.1 and drive her out. On hearing the noise, the other witnesses came and prevented the respondent and the respondent threatened P.W.1 by saying that he will kill her on the same day before night. Hence the complaint given by P.W.1. 5. P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1 has also spoken the sameas stated by the P.W.1. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he was the watchman of the said school and the respondent came with 10 to 15 persons and demolished the compound wall. Hence the complaint given by P.W.1. 5. P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1 has also spoken the sameas stated by the P.W.1. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he was the watchman of the said school and the respondent came with 10 to 15 persons and demolished the compound wall. In the cross examination, he has admitted that there is no evidence to show that he was receiving salary from the appellant. The respondent has denied the fact that he was the watchman of the school. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that P.W.3 was the watchman of the school, it is difficult for the trial Court to accept that he was working as a watchman in the school, and therefore his evidence cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the lower Court has left only with the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. Both are wife and husband and therefore, their evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charges. The Lower Court has taken the view that there is no independent witness to prove that the accused has demolished the compound wall. The photographer, who has taken photographs, has been examined as P.W.4. He has stated that he has taken photographs at 8.00 a.m. but he has not mentioned that on which date he had taken the photographs. This evidence was also not acceptable to the Lower Court. Though P.W.1 has stated that another teacher had also prevented the the respondent from demolishing the compound wall, that teacher was not examined. The Lower Court has taken a view that the evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 is not sufficient,especially when there was civil suit pending between the parties. 6. Since this is an appeal against the acquittal,where two views are possible and if the trial Court has taken one view , this Court cannot take another view and hence, the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court cannot be altered. Since the conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is also possible on the basis of the evidence on record, this court cannot interfere with the order of the appeal against the acquittal. Hence this appeal is dismissed.