VALLIAMMAL Vs. JOTHIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S. C. No. 211 of 1987 dated 16. 3. 1988 for the offence under Secs. 148, 302 read with Secs. 149, 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused and the case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused and the deceased and his family members belonged to Seelampatti Village within Tiruchuli police Jurisdiction. There were two groups in the village, one headed by one samuel, father of the first accused and for the other group one Paranjothi was the leader. Originally Paranjothi was collecting the subscription from all his community people in the village for the welfare of his people and when this was entrusted with Samuel for another period, Samuel who collected the subscription, had misappropriated and therefore a section of the group refused to give him subscription and the villagers were divided into two groups The villagers are predominantly people of Harijan Christian community. One Anburaj of this village had married a girl by name Yesammal, closely related to P. W. 2. They were living at Madra s and due to some misunderstanding between the couple, mainly suspecting the fidelity of yesammal, Anburaj returned to his village Seelampatti, but the deceased dharmaraj went to Madras and brought Yesammal to the village for the purpose of settlement of the dispute between the husband and wife and he was also successful in uniting them. Three days before the occurrence, on Friday, the united couple on the efforts of Dharmaraj left for Madras . On the next day when P. Ws. 2 and 4 were chatting the second accused, who is the brother of Anburaj, scolded P. W. 2 with filthy words for uniting Yesammal with her husband, as she was a woman of bad character. P. W. 2 told this to her husband deceased Dharmaraj who pacified her to be calm. On the next day, P. W. 1 the brother of the deceased Dharmaraj, who was employed in Tuticorin came to the Village Seelampatti for the purpose of obtaining a school certificate for his son for employment and P. W. 2 told him about the conduct of the second accused in abusing her with fifty words. All the accused are related to each other. On 29. 12. 1986 at about 9. 00 a. m. P. W. 1 deceased Dharmaraj and P. W. 2 were proceeding along the street to question the second accused about his conduct and when they were in front of the house of one Pandi, fourth accused was coming from the opposite direction. P. W. 1 told fourth accused about the conduct of second accused in scolding his sister-in-law with abusive words. There was a wordy exchange between them and fourth accused, who went to his house, came along with other accused armed with aruval, velstick and knife stick and accused 1 to 3 attacked the deceased Dharmaraj by cutting on his head and also stabbing him on his right shoulder with velstick. Accused 3 to 5 attacked P. W. 1 with aruval and velstick. When P. W. 3 intervened, the 5th accused beat her with knife fixed in stick. Dharmaraj fell down with serious injuries and all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Dharmaraj was carried to his house and when he was laid down in front of his house, he succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 3 and others witnessed the occurrence. P. W. 11, the Village Administrative Officer, who heard about the incident came to the house of P. W. 1 and recorded the statement Ex. P-1 from him. He took P. Ws. 1 and 2 Tiruchuli Police Station where P. W. 12, the head constable registered the case and sent the injured persons to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital for treatment. P. W. 6, the medical officer attached to Aruppukkotta i Governmen t Hospita l , after giving First Aid to P. W. 1, referred him to Madurai Government Hospital for intensive treatment. P. W. 7, the doctor attached to Madurai Government Hospital, admitted p. W. 1 as out-patient on 29. 12. 1986 at 9. 55 p. m. for treatment. P. W. 14, the inspector of Police took up the investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence and after inquest sent the body for postmortem. P. W. 9, Dr. Mohanraj attached to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital conducted the post-mortem. After investigation, P. W. 14 laid the charge-sheet against these respondents/accused.

(2.) AFTER the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, ramanathapuram, acquitted all these respondents holding that the offences against them were not proved. Hence, P. W. 2, the wife of the deceased, has filed this private revision challenging the order of acquittal of the learned additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) ANOTHER circumstance taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the description of the assailants in the accident register Ex. D-1 prepared by P. W. 7 as 5 unknown persons. P. W. 1 who was taken to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital where his injuries were examined by P. W. 6, who referred him to Madurai Government Hospital for better treatment and when P. W. 1 was brought to Madurai Government Hospital P. W. 7, the medical officer admitted P. W. 1 in the hospital at 9. 55 p. m. P. W. 7 has recorded in the accident register Ex. D-1 that the injured told him that he was assaulted by 5 unknown persons on 29. 12. 1986 at Seelampatti at his house. The learned additional Sessions Judge has given much weight to this document holding that as P. W. 1 was not able to identify the assailants, this circumstance also is an infirmity in the prosecution case. On a perusal of the other documents placed before the court, the recording in Ex. D-1 cannot be a statement of P. W. 1. Soon after the occurrence P. W. 1 has given the statement Ex. P-1 to the Village administrative Officer, P. W. 11, who took him to the Tiruchuli Police Station, where the complaint was registered at 12. 00 Noon. Ex. P-1 complaint was thereafter sent to Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, who received the First information, Report at 02. 00 p. m. itself. Therefore, within three hours, the complaint has reached the court and in the complaint P. W. 1 has specifically mentioned the names of all these accused. P. W. 2 also sustained injuries in the same incident and when P. W. 2 was taken to Aruppukkottai Government Hospital along with the p. W. 1, in the accident register annexed with Ex. P-3, the doctors has recorded that 5 known persons attacked her at 09. 00 a. m. with velstick and aruval. In the wound certificate Ex. P-2, issued for P. W. 1 by P. W. 6, it is not specifically mentioned whether he was attacked by known persons or unknown persons. But in the accident register attached to Ex. P-3, it is mentioned that p. W. 2 was attacked by 5 known persons with velstick and aruval. Somehow, in ex. P-2 the doctor had failed to record about the assailants of P. W. 1 whether they were known or unknown persons. On the other hand, as it is recorded in the accident register for P. W. 2 that the assailants were known persons, P. W. 1 also should have mentioned that the assailants were known persons. When P. W. 1 has specifically mentioned in his complaint Ex. P-1 which reached the court by 02. 00 p. m. that the assailants were known persons and also has mentioned all the names of the assailants it is doubtful whether he would have mentioned to P. W. 7 in Madurai at 0. 55 p. m. that he was attacked by unknown persons. Therefore, the learned additional Sessions Judge ought not to have given importance to Ex. D-1 prepared by P. W. 7 in the later point of time when already the identity of the accused has been mentioned in the records that came into existence in the earliest point of time. Therefore, the description in Ex. D-1 cannot be an infirmity in the prosecution case and the learned Judge need not have given much importance to this document.