CHINNASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal No.511 of 1988 and Criminal Revision Case No.596 of 1988 arose out of one judgment rendered in Sessions Case No.10 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, of the five accused. Accused No.2 alone was convicted and other four accused have been acquitted. As against the conviction the Criminal appeal has been filed by A-2 and as against the acquittal the Criminal Revision Case has been filed by a private party viz., P.W.1, in the case against accused 1, 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: Chinnappa Gounder (deceased in the case) was, a resident of Itchivalasu. P.W.1, Chidambaram is his son and P.W.2, Chinnammal is his wife. THE five accused also are residents of the same village. A-5 is the son A-1 and A-2 is the son-in-law of A-1. A-4 is the elder brother's son of A-1 and A-3 is a relative of A-1. THEre was enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused in connection with lands and also money transaction. It appears one week before the incident the deceased Chinnappa Gounder and his another son Ramasamy questioned A-1 and his wife Nachayee as to how Nachayee could answer the calls of nature in the common cart-track. On 13 11.1986 at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.1, was lying on a cot near their cowshed. Chinnappa Gounder came there. Behind him the five accused came. A-2 recalled about Chinnappa Gounder's behaviour in abusing them about a week ago and with a knife stabbed Chinnappa Gounder near his left eyebrow. When P.W.1., tried to prevent A-4 and A-5 caught hold of him and hit him with hand. THEn A-2 stabbed him with knife in his head and on the right eye brow. A-3 took up a stone and threw it at the deceased. This caused injury in his nose and forehead. When P.W.l's brother Ramasamy and his mother tried to prevent, A-2 with a knife stabbed P.W.2, at the left side of the head and near the left eyebrow. A-3 pushed her down and kicked her and beat her with hand. THE injured shouted. Hearing this P.W.3, Jeevanandam and one Kuzhan-dasamy came there running, All the accused ran away.

(3.) THE lower court has further found that no witness has stated that the deceased was pushed down, P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witness and their evidence in the circumstances of the case cannot be believed without any corroboration. THErefore as regards the injuries sustained by the deceased there is no satisfactory evidence as to which of the accused inflicted which of the injuries. As seen above even according to the deceased and also P.W.1 there was another person also with the accused party and he has not been impleaded as an accused in the case. This being the position I do not think that the order of acquittal of A-1 and A-3 to A-5 by the trial court can be interfered with in the revision filed by the private party. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that there was any defect in the conduct of the trial. Only on the ground that the evidence has not been properly appreciated the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with. THErefore, the revision case is liable to be dismissed.