Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2206 (MAD)

Pachamuthu v. M. Murugesan

2014-07-22

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment 1. The Appellants/complainants have preferred the present criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of acquittal dated 22.12.2009 in C.C.No.277 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, while passing the impugned judgment in C.C.No.277 of 2006 on 22.12.2009 had categorically, inter alia, observed that .... in between the Appellants/Complainants and the Respondent/Accused, there were enquiries going on at the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and in fact, P.W.4 the Head Constable had stated that he had not gone inside the temple and therefore, he was not in a position to know what had happened inside the temple. Further, P.W.6 had also deposed at the time of occurrence, when he was looking into the accounts, no one scolded and resultantly came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the Respondent/Accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and found him not guilty and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Being aggrieved against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 22.12.2009 in C.C.No.277 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, the Appellants/complainants have preferred the present instant Criminal Appeal before this Court. 4. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellants/complainants, the Judgment of the acquittal dated 22.12.2009 is a perverse one and also the same is opposed to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 5. The Learned counsel for the Appellants/complainants submits that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.6 relating to the case filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Expatiating his contention, the Learned counsel for the Appellants/complainants proceeds to project his argument that the trial Court had not taken into account an important fact that there was no intention for the Appellants/complainants to lodge the case and only after a thorough enquiry, the complaint filed in Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2005 by the Respondent/Accused and further, his intention was to cause injury to the Appellants. 7. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused that the trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record had come to a categorical conclusion in the main case in C.C.No.277 of 2006 that the P.W.5 (the Inspector of Police had clearly deposed his evidence in cross examination) that he had not examined the Respondent/Accused and also in respect of the final report, no notice was issued to the Respondent/Accused and only filed the final report and based on the same alone, it could not be held that the offence against the Respondent/Accused had been proved by the Appellants/complainants. 8. The Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused strenuously contends that the trial Court Judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.277 of 2006 dated 22.12.2009 does not suffer from any material irregularities, patent illegality in the eye of law. 9. It transpires that earlier the Respondent/Accused filed a complaint in Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, as against the present Appellants/Respondents therein praying for taking necessary action against them under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for their acts mentioned in the complaint. 10. At this stage, a perusal of the said contents of Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2005 indicates that the respondent/accused had alleged that on 13.3.2005 (Sunday) when the respondent/accused was looking into the income accounts of the temple at that point of time the Appellants/accused scolded him in uncertain terms by not looking into the income and expenditure accounts and also stated that by raising their voices. At that point of time, the 7th Appellant/7th Accused took chopper from the temple by acting in their favour and shouted at the Respondent/Accused by stating only when he was alive he would file a case and as such, he could be murdered and came to cut the Respondent/Accused. At that point of time, the 6th Appellant/6th Accused caught hold of the hair of the Respondent/Accused and assaulted him on the neck and push him down. At that point of time, the Appellants/Accused with full vigor shouted at the Respondent/Accused stating that he had to withdraw the case filed at Madras immediately and when the situation became grim, the Respondent/Complainant came running by closing the temple by putting the lock and ran away to save his life. At that point of time, the Appellants/Accused with full vigor shouted at the Respondent/Accused stating that he had to withdraw the case filed at Madras immediately and when the situation became grim, the Respondent/Complainant came running by closing the temple by putting the lock and ran away to save his life. At that time, the 7th Appellant/7th Accused waylaid the Respondent/Accused and also uttered that if he had not handed over the key of the temple by evening of tomorrow then he would be murdered. Further, one Mani son of Saminathan Poosari tried to dash against the Respondent/Accused with a cycle. Fearing his life, instead of proceeding to the temple, the Respondent/Accused had filed the complaint. 11. The aforesaid complaint of the Respondent/Accused was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Sevapet Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It comes to be known that the Sub Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station in regard to C.M.P.No.184 of 2005 dated 16.3.2005 had issued C.S.R.45/2005 dated 25.4.2005 and enquired about the petition and visited the seen of occurrence and came to the conclusion that no such incident took place on 13.3.2005. 12. In fact, the Sub Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem City, had stated that the details mentioned in the complaint of the Respondent/Accused were all contrary to the facts and submitted the same to the trial Court. Based on the reply of the Sub Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, the complaint was closed on 2.6.2005. 13. Subsequent to the closing of the Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2005, the Appellants/complainants had filed the complaint in C.C.No.277 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, as against the Respondent/Accused, who preferred earlier Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. 14. In C.C.No.277 of 2006, the Appellants had stated that the Respondent/Accused spoiled their image and reputation in society and reputation in their community and caste was lowered due to the act of the Respondent/Accused and in order to take revenge, the accused had made false and untenable complaint before the Court and the same was closed on 25.6.2005 as per the police reply. Therefore, the Appellants pray for entertaining the complaint conducting enquiry against the Respondent/Accused and was liable to be punished according to law in respect of the offence under Section 211 read with Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. They also sought compensation to be awarded to them in terms of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 15. Before the trial Court on his appearance, the relevant copies of the documents were given to the Respondent/Accused under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 16. On the basis of accusation levelled against the Respondent/Accused, the trial Court framed necessary charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In the main case, on the side of the prosecution, the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.2 were marked. On the side of the Respondent/Accused, no one was examined and further no documents were marked. 17. When the Respondent/Accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the incriminating circumstance appearing against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. 18. In order to bring home the guilt under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution should prove (1) the imputation in question consisted of words spoken or intended to be read, or of signs etc; (2) the imputation concerned the complainant; (3) such imputation emanated from the accused; (4) the accused made or published it; and (5) the accused intended thereby to harm the reputation of complainant or that he knew or had reason to believe that it could do so. 19. It is incumbent on the complainant to produce the evidence to show that the Accused made or published imputation complained of. 20. It was the evidence of P.W.2 before the trial Court that after kumbabishekam, the second Appellant/Complainant demanded accounts from Murugesan and at that time the talks were in high speech and one Vijayakumar informed that the accounts were not proper and he took away the notebook and they made shouts. 21. P.W.3 in his evidence had deposed that no incident took place at the temple. P.W.4 had also deposed his evidence that he had not entered into the temple and as such, he had not known as to what had happened inside the temple. 21. P.W.3 in his evidence had deposed that no incident took place at the temple. P.W.4 had also deposed his evidence that he had not entered into the temple and as such, he had not known as to what had happened inside the temple. P.W.6 also had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was looking into the accounts and further said that no one indulged in scolding. 22. In a criminal prosecution, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. However, in regard to the present case is concerned, namely, C.C.No.277 of 2006, on the file of the trial Court filed by the Appellants/complainants whereby they had prayed before the Court for entertaining their complaint to conduct enquiry against the Respondent/Accused and punish him according to law in respect of the offence under Section 211 read with Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal code. This Court on the basis of the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 is of the considered view that the offence levelled against the Respondent/Accused had not been proved by the Appellants beyond all shadow of doubt. 23. Also that this Court had perused the Judgment of the trial Court wherein the Respondent/Accused was acquitted and this Court comes to a consequent conclusion that the trial Court had categorically observed in paragraph 8 of its Judgment that P.W.5 in his evidence (in cross examination) had crystal clearly stated that he had not examined the complainants and the respondent/accused on the basis of the complaint and also when he had submitted his final report. He had not also sent the final report and therefore based on the final report alone, it could not be held that the offence levelled against the respondent/accused were found to be proved. This Court in fact is in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial Court in this regard. 24. To put it precisely, the Judgment of the acquittal delivered by the trial Court in respect of the Respondent/Accused in C.C.No.147 of 2010 holding him not guilty under Section 500 of the Indian Penal code and acquitting him ingredients of Section 255 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the considered opinion of this Court does not suffer from serious material irregularities or patent illegalities in the eye of Law. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal fails. 25. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal fails. 25. In the result, the criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem in C.C.No.277 of 2006 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal.