Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1146 (MAD)

Chandrasekar v. Selvam and others

2004-09-09

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2004
ORDER: This revision has been filed by the petitioner P.W.1 against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Salem in C.C.No.79 of 2001. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial Magistrate appears to be to the effect that on 11.11.2000 at about 10.15 a.m.at door No.224/A, Thathahapatti-Trichy Main Road within the jurisdiction of Annathanapatti Police Station, due to previous enmity, the first accused- Selvam caught hold of the petitioner P.W.1-Chandrasekar and second accused -Kathirmalayan attacked the said Chandrasekar with hands and caused injuries and both the accused further threatened the said Chandrasekar with causing of death and thereby they have committed an offence under Secs.341, 323, 506(ii), I.P.C. After trial, the said Magistrate has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the accused and thereby acquitted both the accused. 3. This revision has been filed on the ground that the trial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6-doctor and that existence of civil dispute between the accused and complainant is the motive for the occurrence and that the minor contradictions need not have been considered by the trial Magistrate. 4. I have gone through the entire evidence available for the prosecution in the light of the judgment passed by the trial Magistrate and the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner as well as the respondents / accused. 5. P.W.4 Para.masivam, who is alleged to be an eye witness has stated that at about 10.30 a.m, he visited the office of P.W.1 and at that time, there was some oral heated discussions about the land dispute and when he entered into the premises, both the accused came out, he was able to see P.W.1 with some bleeding injuries and however he has been treated as hostile. P.W.J Murugan, who is alleged to be the witness for the preparation of observation mahazar also has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has also been treated as hostile. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that at ahout 10.15 a.m, while he was in his Javuli shop both the accused came there and A-1 caught hold of him and A-2 attacked him on the chest and tried to pressurise his throat and also threatened his life and at that time, witnesses Shanmugam and Paramasivam came there and immediately accused ran away. But at the same time the complaint given by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1 goes to indicate that as soon as the said witnesses Shanmugam and Para.masivam entered into the premises, both the accused ran away and with the help of Shanmugam, he went to the Government Hospital, Salem for treatment. So, the complaint marked as Ex.P1 does not indicate in clear terms as to whether both the witnesses namely, Shanmugam and Para.masivam actually witnessed the occurrence or on their entrance, the accused ran away. At the same time the evidence of P.W.2-Shanmugam in his evidence has stated that when he entered into the Javuli shop of P.W.1 with injuries upon his neck and at that time there was no other person in the Javuli shop of P.W.1. In the cross examination, he has clearly admitted that he was not present in the shop of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence and subsequently, he alone went to his office. Therefore, it is to be noted that if really P.W.2 has seen the occurrence, he would not have stated so in the cross examination and in Ex.P1 also need not have stated in that manner. That is why, after considering the evidence of prosecution and other circumstances, trial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the accused, consequently acquitted him. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity or perversity in appreciation of the evidence by the trial Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the charges framed against the accused and they are liable to be acquitted. In such circumstances, this court has no necessity to invoke the revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the judgment of the acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate. 6. In the result, this revision is dismissed as devoid of merits by confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Salem passed in C.C.No.79 of 2001 dated 21.1.2003.