LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-119

P RATHINAM Vs. STATE

Decided On July 02, 2003
P.RATHINAM Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/A-4 herein who stood charged and tried along with four others under Ss 148, 447, 324, 365 and 342 of I.P.C. and S.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and found guilty under Ss 147, 447, 342 and 365 of I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under S.147 in default of which to undergo 3 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under S.447 in default of which to undergo 15 days R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo 3 months R.I. and to undergo 1 day imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo 6 months R.I. has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: P.W.6 Ponnusamy was carrying on his crushing business by name Senthil Raja Jalli Crusher at Vaiyamalai. P.W.1 Balakrishnan, P.W.2 Kandasamy, P.W.3 Tmt.Chinthamani, P.W.4 Viswanathan and P.W.5 Shanmugam were employed under him. On 30.1.1993, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 took two loads of jalli in two lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN 33-5004 and TN 28 Y-8856 to a person at Konganapuram. At the time of loading the jalli at 1.00 A.M., there was a wordy quarrel between the said prosecution witnesses and the local area people there, as a result of which both the parties were attacking each other. Afterwards, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 returned to the Crusher Mill. At about 3.00 A.M., the accused 1 to 5 accompanied by 30 persons came in a Toyota Van bearing Registration No.TCH 3648 and trespassed into the Crusher Mill. They abused P.W.2 the watchman of the Mill by using filthy language referring to his cast. The second accused drove the Crusher Lorry No.TN 33-5004, dashed against the Office and caused damage to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the accused kidnapped P.W.2 to their place and kept him under wrongful confinement. A-1 threatened P.W.6 Ponnusamy that he should surrender the two lorry drivers namely P.Ws.4 and 5, if he was to release P.W.2 from the confinement. At 10.00 A.M. P.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint, on the strength of which P.W.11 Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.95/93 under Ss 147, 148, 341, 364, 427 and 447 of I.P.C. Ex.P5 F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court. P.W.11 took up the further investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch, examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 6 on 31.1.93 at 8.15 P.M. and recorded their statements. P.W.2 came to the Police Station and gave a statement to P.W.11. P.W.11 Investigation Officer sent P.W.2 to the Government Hospital, Thiruchengode for treatment. P.W.8 Dr.Nalliappan, attached to Government Hospital, Thiruchengode, gave treatment to P.W.2, found four injuries on him and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. On the basis of the statement of P.W.2, P.W.11 added S.7(1)(d) of PCR Act and sent Ex.P7 report to the Court concerned. The Investigation Officer seized the vehicle No.TN 33-5004 and sent the same for expert's opinion. He also seized the other vehicle TCM Toyota bearing Registration No.3468, marked as M.O.3 in the presence of P.W.10 Kandasamy and one Mohan under Ex.P4 mahazar. The Investigation Officer examined P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and 10 and recorded their statements. P.W.12, who took charge of the respondent Police Station on 28.9.93, examined the other witnesses, and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode on 30.9.1993.

(3.) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 7 exhibits and 3 material objects. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and they flatly denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After considering the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the trial Court found the appellant/A-4 along with the other accused guilty of the offences. The lower Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment as stated supra.