DEVARAJ Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate II, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District in C.C.No.59 of 1999, acquitting respondents 2 to 8 of offences under Section 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 and 506 (ii), IPC.

(2.) THE case is one that arises on a police report and the State not having filed any appeal against the said acquittal, but it is only P.W.1, who has filed this revision, it may not be necessary for me to go into the facts of the case in detail. In such circumstances, the power of this Court sitting in a revisionary jurisdiction is also limited only to the extent of seeing whether there is any flagrant violation of law or material evidence having been overlooked, as often said by the Supreme Court. In the light of the abovesaid proposition, it would suffice to state the prosecution case in brief as follows: Originally, it appears that P.W.1 -Devaraj had lent some money to one Muniappan, arrayed as A -7 in the above said Calendar Case and since the said Muniappan was not forthcoming to repay the amount, P.W.1 had been insisting upon the same by all means. While that being so, on 01.10.1998 at about 7.30 p.m, when P.Ws. 2 to 4 were present in their house, the accused eight in number have tresspassed into the house and questioned the whereabouts of P.W.1. It is at that juncture, P.W.2 had stated that her husband, namely P.W.1 was out of station, whereupon A -1 had bet P.W.1. on her cheeks repeatedly. On seeing the said incident, when P.Ws.3 and 4 questioned the same, they were also beaten by A -1. Thereafter, they made a thorough search for the presence of P.W.1 inside the house and after having come to the conclusion that he was away from his house had tried to leave the place. At that Juncture, they had threatened the prosecution witnesses not to ask for the money from the said Muniappan, failing which they will be done away with. Later, at about 10.00 when P.W.1 had reached home, the incident was reported to him, who whereupon went to the police station and gave a complaint to P.W.14 the Sub -Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station. He on receipt of the same, registered a case in Crime No. 340 of 1996 for the abovesaid offences. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the charge -sheet was laid against the accused/respondents.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate had gone into the evidence and had acquitted the accused/respondents. The reasons given by the Magistrate for disbelieving the prosecution case is that there had been a delay of three hours in launching the First Information Report. I am afraid that in a case of this nature, the delay of three hours does not matter much, since admittedly in the present case, P.W.1 the head of the family was not in the house. It is only his wife and children, who were present at the time of occurrence and hence, one cannot expect the wife and the children to go immediately to the police station and give a report. There is every reason for them to have waited till the arrival of the head of the family. Accordingly, it is soon after P.W.1 on coming to know about the incident had been to the police station and given a report. Hence, in the circumstances, the delay does not assume any importance.