LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-434

D VENKATACHALAM Vs. STATE

Decided On August 06, 2007
D. VENKATACHALAM Appellant
V/S
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been field by the accused against the judgment dated 9.10.1999 rendered in S.C. No. 6 of 1998 by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.

(2.) THE case of prosecution is as follows : (i) P.W. 1 is a resident of Keezhakurichi. He belongs to Hindu "Paraiyar" Community. THE accused belongs to Hindu "Velalar" Community. On 19.2.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 along with his friend Chinnadurai (P.W.2) was proceeding in Herohonda bike and when they were nearing Mannarkudi - Pattukottai main road, the first accused stopped the vehicle and scolded him and assaulted him. At, that time, P.Ws. 3 and 5 were present at the scene of occurrence. So, P.W.1 went to Madukkur Police Station and gave a Complaint, where he was directed to approach PCR wing. THEn he sent the Complaint by post to PCR wing. (ii) P.W.4, received the Complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 83 of 1995 under Sections 341, 323, I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. THE first information report is Ex.P.2 THEn it was dispatched to Madukkur Police Station for further investigation. (iii) THEn, P.W.5 Inspector, Madukkur Police Station took up the case for further investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.3 He recorded the statements of Senthamizh Selvan, Chinnadurai, Arputham, Jeyaraman, Ramamoorthy and P. Ramamoorthy. On 24.2.1995 he recorded the statements of Shanmugavel, and Anbumani. On 24.2.1995 he arrested Chithiravel and remanded him to judicial custody. After completing investigation, he obtained the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and filed charge sheet under Sections,341, 323, I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x), SC/ST Act.

(3.) ON completion of the examination witnesses on the side of prosecution the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and he denied them as false. ON the defence side, no witness was examined and no document was marked.