MIKE SET GANESAN ALIAS KUPPUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TOTALLY, there are six accused. They have been convicted by the trial Court for the offences under sections 148,341,324,302 read with 149, 302 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Challenging the same, A-4 Amanullah filed Criminal Appeal No. 981 of 2003 and A-1 to A-3, namely, Mike set Ganesan, Pandalkara Raj, Brandy kadai Pommusamy and A-5 and a-6, namely, Selvaraj and Chinnavan filed Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2003.

(2.) THE short facts, leading to the conviction, are as follows: " (i) P. W. 1 Govindasamy is the husband of P. W. 10 Perumayee. THEy belong to Nanjundapuram village. P. W. 2 and P. Ws. 5 to 7 also belong to the same village. All the accused belong to moongilpatti village. (ii) On 30. 08. 2000 at about 06. 45 p. m. , P. W. 1 and his wife P. W. 10 were proceeding in a bicycle along Athani-Appakudal Road , toward the village. P. W. 1 was driving the bicycle and P. W. 10 was the pillion rider. (iii) At that point of time, a-4 Ammanullah and A-6 Chinnavan came on a motorbike in the same road. A-4 was driving the motorbike, in which A-6 was the pillion rider. On seeing that p. W. 10, a woman, was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle driven by P. W. 1, when the motorbike came near the bicycle, A-6, the pillion rider of the motorbike, tapped on the back of P. W. 10 and tore her jacket. Reacting to that, p. W. 10 shouted at both A-4 and A-6. (iv) On hearing the noise, p. W. 2 Kamaraj, deceased Kumar, P. W. 5 Ayyappan and P. W. 7 Mayilduraiyan rushed to the scene and attempted to block the motorbike. In spite of that, both the accused sped away on their motorbike. THEreupon, these witnesses enquired p. Ws. 1 and 10, who informed them of the misbehaviour of A-4 and A-6. Immediately, all of them went to Keelvani village to question the conduct of a-4 and A-6. When they entered into the village at about 08. 00 p. m, they saw a-3 Brandy Kadai Pommusamy and A-5 Selvaraj in front of a Parotta Shop. When the witnesses complained about the act of A-4 and A-6, there was a quarrel, as a result of which A-3 and A-5 pushed P. W. 2 down, thereby P. W. 2 fell down on the ground. (v) THEn, the villagers gathered there and asked P. W. 1 and other witnesses to return to their village and come on the next day morning, to have a panchayat. Accordingly, they were returning to their village. When they came near Prakash Thottam at about 08. 30 p. m, A-1 to A-6 came there in two separate motorcycles and waylaid the witnesses. A-1, A-4 and A-5 assaulted the deceased Kumar with casuarina sticks. A-3 assaulted P. W. 2 with casuarina stick on his head. A-5 and A-6 assaulted p. W. 5. When the other witnesses questioned the accused about their act, the witnesses were threatened and abused, by using their caste name. THEreupon, A-1 to A-6 went away from the place of occurrence. (vi) THE injured were immediately taken to the hospital, belonging to P. W. 3 Dr. Kariyamanickam at athani village. He declared the victim Kumar as dead, after examination. (vii) THEreupon, P. W. 1 went to Appakudal Police Station and gave a complaint Ex. P-1 to P. W. 18, sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case at 03. 30 a. m. on 31. 08. 2000 in crime No. 195 of 2000 for various offences, including Section 302 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (viii) On the same day, at about 04. 30 a. m. , P. W. 19, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the investigation; proceeded to the place of occurrence; prepared rough sketch, ex. P-31 and observation mahazar Ex. P-12 and seized the blood stained tar M. O. 14 and sample tar M. O. 15. (ix) In the meantime, the injured witnesses P. Ws. 1,2,5 and 6 were treated by doctors P. Ws. 4 and 8. THEy issued Exs. P-4,p-5 and P-6, wound certificates. (x) P. W. 19, Deputy superintendent of Police, came to the hospital, belonging to P. W. 3, and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Kumar on 31. 08. 2000 early in the morning from 07. 00 a. m. onwards. During inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1,2,5 and 6 and sent the dead body for post-mortem. (xi) P. W. 8, Doctor, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found six injuries. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to head injury. Ex. P-3 is the Post-mortem Certificate. (xii) P. W. 19 received a complaint at about 02. 00 p. m. on 31. 08. 2000 from A-3, who sustained injuries, and registered the same in Crime No. 196 of 2000. THEn, he arrested A-1,a-2 and a-4 and, on their confession, recovered M. O. 16, TVS 50, and M. O. 17, Rajdoot motorcycle. He also recovered casuarina sticks from the accused. THEreafter, he arrested A-3; examined the other witnesses and obtained community certificates from the Tahsildar for both the accused and the prosecution witnesses. In the meantime, he came to know that A-5 and A-6 surrendered before the Court. On getting police custody of A-5 and A-6 and, in pursuance of their confession, he recovered casuarina sticks. (xiii) After completion of investigation, P. W. 20, the successor Investigating Officer, filed charge sheet against all the accused. (xiv) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 20 were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-39 were filed and M. Os. 1 to 21 were marked. (xv) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. with regard to the incriminating materials available on record, they simply denied their complicity in the crime. (xvi) On the side of defence, D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D-1 to D-3 were marked. According to D. W. 1, there was frequent running of the buses from Prakash Thottam, where the alleged occurrence took place, to various towns. (xvii) THE trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offences referred to above. (xviii) Hence, these appeals, by the accused A-1 to A-6. &quot ;

(3.) IT is a settled law that when the counter complaint is given by the accused for the injuries sustained by him in the course of same transaction at the hands of the deceased party, the investigating officer has to investigate into both the complaints and file final report, after finding out as to who the aggressor is, by placing all the materials before the Court. When the counter complaint has not been registered and placed before the Court, it will amount to suppression of the genesis and origin of the occurrence, which would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution and, in that event, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.