Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3880 (MAD)

State by, The Inspector of Police v. Vairam

2014-10-16

A.SELVAM, V.S.RAVI

body2014
Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. The order of acquittal dated 10.07.2000 passed in Sessions Case No.25 of 2000 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai is being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The nubble of the case of the prosecution is that on or about 15.09.1998 in Sullani Village, in the paddy field of the accused, she attacked the deceased by name Sundararasu by using an aruval and due to her overtacts he passed away and after occurrence, the accused herself has given a complaint in Mimisal Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.68 of 1998 under Sections 147, 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On receipt of such complaint, the Inspector of Police, who has been examined as P.W.4 conducted investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Arantangi and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.3 of 2000. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Arantangi after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Pudukkottai and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.25 of 2000. 5. The trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to her. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.s.1 to 4 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 10 have been marked. 7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against her, she denied her complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 8. The trial Court, after considering the available evidence on record, has found the accused not guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately acquitted her. Against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the State. 9. 8. The trial Court, after considering the available evidence on record, has found the accused not guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately acquitted her. Against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the State. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecution has contended that in the instant case the investigation has set the law in motion only on the basis of the complaint alleged to have been given by the accused and further the accused herself has given an extra judicial confession to one Pethaian and the trial Court without considering the aforesaid factual aspects has erroneously acquitted the accused and therefore the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 10. As stated earlier, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred only at the instance of the State. 11. The consistent case putforth on the side of the prosecution is that on or about 15th day of September, 1998 in Sullani Village in the paddy field of the accused, she attacked the deceased by name Sundararasu by using an aruval and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to her overtacts, the said Sundararasu has passed away. 12. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 have been examined and P.Ws.1 and 2 are not at all eye-witnesses and P.W.3 is nothing, but Village Administrative Officer, who has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime and P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer. Except ricketive type of evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, no evidence is available so as to point out the alleged guilt of the accused. 13. Even though the prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of the complaint alleged to have been given by the accused, the same has not been exhibited and further the prosecution has not examined the person to whom the accused has given an extra judicial confession. Therefore viewing from any angle, the prosecution has not adduced even an iota of evidence so as to prove the alleged guilt of the accused punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore viewing from any angle, the prosecution has not adduced even an iota of evidence so as to prove the alleged guilt of the accused punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the prosecution has not at all adduced even a piece of evidence so as to point out the guilt of the accused, it is highly impossible on the part of the Court to invite conviction and sentence against the accused. 14. The trial Court after considering lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution has rightly acquitted the accused. In view of the foregoing enunciation of factual aspects, this Court has not found any force in the contention putforth on the side of the appellant and altogether the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. In fine, this Criminal Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.25 of 2000 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Pudukkottai is confirmed.