LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-108

AKILAN @ AKILANATHAN; RATHIMARAN Vs. STATE

Decided On September 16, 2016
Akilan @ Akilanathan; Rathimaran Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.08.2009 in S.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam, in and by which, the appellants/A6 and A7 stood for trial along with the 12 other accused persons; A1 to A5 and A8 to A14 were acquitted of the charges by the trial Court and the appellants herein (A6 and A7) alone were convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder : <FV>JUDGEMENT_108_LAWS(MAD)9_2016.html</FV> <JT> <PARA> This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 12.08.2009 in S.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam, in and by which, the appellants/A6 and A7 stood for trial along with the 12 other accused persons; A1 to A5 and A8 to A14 were acquitted of the charges by the trial Court and the appellants herein (A6 and A7) alone were convicted and sentenced as tabulated hereunder : <FV>JUDGEMENT_108_LAWS(MAD)9_2016.html</FV>

(2.) P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant in this case. It is the case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellants/A6 and A7, that there was a land dispute between the prosecution witnesses and the accused persons. While so, on 27.03.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.1 and other witnesses were returning after attending the wedding reception of one Sankar, in two-wheelers in groups. P.W.1 and P.W.8 were travelling in one motor-cycle and others were following in different motor-cycles. While they were proceeding on the main road near Chettikuppam, the accused persons assembled with deadly weapons like knife, wooden logs, iron pipe and veecharuval, way-laid P.W.1 and others and assaulted them. The first appellant herein (A6) assaulted P.W.2 on his head and the second appellant herein (A7) assaulted P.W.2 with an iron pipe. All the other accused attacked with their respective weapons, which were in their possession, indiscriminately on the prosecution witnesses and caused grievous injuries. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Subsequently, the injured-victims-prosecution witnesses, were admitted in PIMS Hospital, Kalapet, Pondicherry. On 28.03.2007 (i.e. next day to the date of occurrence), P.W.1 went to Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with P.W.13 Inspector of Police, on receipt of which, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC. Ex.P-12 is the FIR. Thereafter, P.W.13 went to the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-13 rough sketch. Subsequently, on 29.03.2007, P.W.13 arrested A6 (first appellant herein) and A8 (acquitted accused) near Anumathai Bus Stand and recorded their confession statements in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11, based on which, he recovered M.O.1 veecharuval near a poultry farm under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-15. The admitted portion of the confession statement of the appellants is Ex.P-14. Thereafter, P.W.13 could not arrest the other accused persons, as they were out on anticipatory bail. P.W.13 took steps for remanding the accused persons to judicial custody. P.W.13 obtained the medical certificates of the injured-victims and examined the Doctor concerned and recorded the Doctor's statements. After completing the investigation and all the other formalities, P.W.13 filed charge sheet against the accused persons including the appellants herein. The case was taken on file by the trial Court in S.C.No.28 of 2009. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked and M.O.1 was produced. When the appellants/accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked. Upon hearing the submissions of both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the appellants/A6 and A7 were convicted by the trial Court as tabulated above and other accused persons were acquitted. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A6 and A7 have filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/A6 and A7 submitted that the Accident Register pertaining to the injured-victims had not been marked by the prosecution, and the same had been suppressed. He further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to Ex.P-8 discharge summary issued by Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai, in respect of P.W.2 and submitted that in Ex.P-8, it has been stated that "this 27 year old gentleman is a known case of RTA with right frontal depressed fracture; he had undergone right frontal craniectomy and excision of fracture fragment on 11.04.2007; he was then discharged in a stable condition; he has now come for further management." Thus, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in Ex.P-8 discharge summary pertaining to P.W.2, it is stated that he is a known case of RTA (Road Traffic Accident). He further invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor, who has admitted in his cross-examination that in the discharge summary, he has mentioned as "RTA", but this crucial document was not properly considered by the trial Court and had Ex.P-8 discharge summary been considered by the trial Court in proper perspective, the case of the prosecution would have been thrown away, more particularly, with regard to the fact that P.W.2 sustained injuries only due to assault by the appellants/A6 and A7. That apart, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the occurrence took place on 27.03.2007, but the complaint Ex.P-1 was lodged only on 28.03.2007 after about 11 hours, and this delay of nearly 11 hours, will vitiate the case of the prosecution, as the same has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though M.O.1 Veecharuval was marked through the investigating officer, none of the witnesses identified M.O.1's usage by the accused persons in the occurrence. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there are lots of infirmities in the case of the prosecution, which has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. For these reasons, learned Senior Counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants and to allow the appeal.