AROCKYAM Vs. STATE, INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern both the Crl.A.(MD) No. 226 of 2009 and Crl.RC.(MD) No. 288 of 2010. Crl.A.(MD) No. 226/2009 has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Fast Track Court, Dindigul, dated 29.07.2009, made in S.C. No. 63/2008, whereby the appellants, ranked as accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with other nine persons, ranked as accused Nos. 3 to 11, stood charged and tried for the following charges, <FRM>JUDGEMENT_671_LAWS(MAD)7_2010_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of both the appeal and the revision could be stated thus:

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 63/2008 and necessary charges were framed. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-20 and produced M.Os.1 to 12. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved certain charges against the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt, found them guilty there under and sentenced them as referred to above. Hence the appeal at the instance of the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2. Insofar as the other charges levelled against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and all the charges in respect of other accused, the trial judge found that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence a judgment of acquittal was recorded. Challenging the acquittal part of the trial court judgment, P.W.1, the defacto complainant, has brought forth the criminal revision.