STATE Vs. RATHINAM ALIAS RATHINAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.2000 in S.C.No.96 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 8.11.2000 in S.C.No.96 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.) The State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the judgment impugned in this appeal. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IN S.C.No.96 of 2000 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, the respondents were tried under Sections 376, 302, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. It may be noticed that in the above referred to Sessions Case, final report was filed not only against the respondents herein arrayed as A.1 to A.5 but also against another person arrayed as A.6. The charge against A.6 in the above referred to Sessions Case was under Section 201 I.P.C. It is on record that on an application taken out by A.6 in S.C.No.96 of 2000, the prosecution case against him was split up and taken separately as S.C.No.214 of 2000 by the very same Court of Sessions. We state that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case against that accused also, separately tried in S.C.No.214 of 2000 and acquitted him. That judgment is also in challenge before this court by the State in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2001. At the end of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.5 of all the charges framed against them. As stated earlier, the State is before this court challenging the said judgment of acquittal. For convenience sake in this judgment Anbalagan, INspector of Police, since tried separately, will be referred whenever need arises as A.6.

(3.) P.W.1 along with the watch went to the mill and asked the owner (the lady) stating that as the watch is always worn by the owner (obviously referring to A.1), why they have done like that. The owner (the lady) replied that the said watch will be worn by young boys and therefore she did not know anything about that. P.W.1 holding the legs of the owner (the lady) cried and the lady forced her way out. P.W.1 came home and showing the watch to her husband cried stating that the owners have done like that. P.W.1's husband wanted to use the telephone available in the company and they refused to give the phone. P.W.1's husband went to the mill once again and cried to the owner (the lady). The lady replied that she did not know who did that and told P.W.1's husband to go towards the well. When P.W.1's husband wanted to use the phone available in the mill, they said that there is no phone at all. P.W.1 moved away weeping. At that time P.W.4 came in the opposite direction. When P.W.1 asked P.W.4 as to what happened, P.W.4 said that one day he will tell the matter. P.W.4 is also working in the same mill. On her way she met P.W.14 and when he asked her as to why she is weeping, she told about the incident. P.W.16 in his evidence would state that on 23.12.1995 he was in the mill. Sundaram, Ravi and Rangaraj were also there to assemble a machine. At 11.00 a.m. P.W.1 came to the mill and wept that her daughter, who had reported for duty is not to be seen and she was advised to leave stating that her daughter had not reported for duty at all. At or about 1.30 p.m. on that day P.W.1 once again came to the mill weeping that she located her daughter in a well and asked permission to use the phone available in the mill. Her request was refused and P.W.1 left the mill weeping once again. P.W.1 once again appeared in the mill with a watch in her hand and asked P.W.16 showing the watch. P.W.1 then left the mill premises. The mill owner did not allow P.W.16 and others to go near the well. At 3.30 p.m. when P.W.16 told his mill owner about the body lying in the well, he was told that somebody may be lying dead in the well and therefore P.W.16 need not go and see.