ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sivagangai in S.C.No.100 of 2014, dtd. 5/12/2015, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Special Sessions Court to try the cases against Women at Sivagangai in Crl.Appeal No.62 of 2015 on 24/5/2017.

(2.) Heard Mr.O.Sivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, in his judgment in S.C.No.100 of 2014, dtd. 5/12/2005 had convicted the accused which is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The witnesses are P.W-1-P.Munichamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Illayangudi Police Station, P.W-2-S.Esakithurai, Police Constable in the same Police Station, P.W-3-R.Muthuramalingam, P.W-6- Chelladurai, Village Assistant of Illayangudi (South), P.W-4-Veeramuthu and P.W-5-Jallil, both are remained hostile. P.W-7-Karnan also remained hostile. P.W-8-Thirunavukarasu, also remained hostile and P.W-9-Jayasimman and P.W-10-Natarajan had also remained hostile. P.W-11-Muniraj who is a Doctor at Illayangudi Hospital had supported the case of the prosecution and issued a Certificate of Drunkenness under Ex.P-9. The deposition in his cross-examination was not considered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge- cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga. The Doctor, P.W-11, is the only witness who supported the prosecution apart from the police officials (i.e.,) P.W-1 to P.W-3 whereas independent witnesses P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-7 to P.W-10 had not supported the prosecution. Therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai in S.C.No.100 of 2014 is perverse. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused, the accused had preferred the appeal in Crl.A.62 of 2017 before the learned Mahila Judge (Sessions Judge Level), Sivaganga. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the prosecution and on appreciation of evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had also confirmed the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivaganga. Aggrieved by the same, the accused had come before this Court by filing this revision.