M SEKARAN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.37 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent police. He lodged a complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused stating that on 29.6.2009 onwards, the employees of M.O.H. Plant in Chennai Port Trust participated in the strike by demanding promotion in which the Junior Engineers have not participated. Enraged over the same, the members of HMS Union, namely, the respondents 2 and 3 herein have conspired to threaten the management of Port Trust with an intention to murder one Sekaran, Junior Engineer, who has not participated in the strike. Subsequently, on 01.07.2009 at about 3.30 p.m. the accused Suresh came along with Sridhar as pillion rider in his motor cycle and got down at the entrance of M.O.H. Plant Office and the 2nd respondent pulled the shirt of Sekaran and the 3rd respondent poured petrol on him and attempted to lit the match stick and set fire and the same was thwarted by the said Sekaran and thereby escaped from the burning. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered by the 1st respondent herein against the accused persons under Sections 341 and 307 of IPC. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused. Against the said acquittal, the revision petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, is before this Court with this revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that P.W.1 has categorically deposed before the trial court that when he was coming to attend the duty, the respondents 2 and 3 had poured petrol on him and attempted to set him on fire and his evidence was corroborated by P.W.2 also and the said action of the respondents 2 and 3 would amount to offences under Sections 341 and 307 of IPC. But the learned trial court Judge without taking into consideration of the same, acquitted the accused. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that P.W.3 an independent witness has also deposed that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was wet with petrol which would go to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would also submit that the trial court has failed to take note of the fact that the complainant has stated the colour of the shirt as white which was worn by him at the time of occurrence and after that he changed the rose colour shirt.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that the very presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the occurrence spot is in dispute because in the evidence it has been admitted that they were on duty at the relevant point of time. Further the outpost in which P.W.1 and P.W.2 were working is 1 km. away from the occurrence spot. He would further contend that though it is stated by P.W.1 that the shirt M.O.4 which was worn at the time of occurrence is rose colour, the Investigating Officer seized M.O.4 white shirt. Therefore, there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness and by giving the benefit of doubt, the trial court acquitted the accused and the same has to be sustained.