P. VINCENT Vs. BALUPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed as against the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 at Kuzhithurai dt. 10.4.97 made in STC. No. 454 of 1995 acquitting the Respondents 1 and 2 accused 1 and 2 for the charge under S. 284 of IPC.

(2.) THE 3rd Respondent police filed the charge sheet as against the Respondents 1 and 2 accused 1 and 2 on the basis that on 3.11.1994 at about 3:30 p.m. in a drinking water well located in the coconut grove of one Kamalan, the Respondents 1 and 2 accused 1 and 2 poured Furudan, which is a poisonous carbonate compound used as insecticides and made the water in the well poisonous affecting the Public Health, and so the Respondents 1 and 2 accused 1 and 2 are liable to be punished under S. 284 of IPC. There are 11 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Out of them the first witness by name Vincent. S/o. Balayyan, examined as P.W. 1 before the trial Magistrate gave the complaint, and the witnesses 2 to 7 in the charge sheet are persons to speak about the occurrence and to corroborate the evidence of other witnesses, and out of these seven witnesses, P.W. 1 Vincent S/o. Balayyan, P.W. 2. Thangaswami and P.W. 3 Vincent S/o. Thangaswami were alone examined on the side of the Prosecutions. The 8th witness in the charge sheet is cited to speak about the mahazar, and the 9th witness in the charge sheet is to speak about the taking of the sample of the water from the well and about the testing of the said water and about the chemical analysis report, and the 10th witness in the charge sheet is also a mahazar witness who happened to be the Village Administrative Officer, and the 11th witness in the charge sheet is the Sub -Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station by name Soundarapandian. Thus out of 11 witnesses only first three witnesses were examined and others were not examined. In such circumstances the learned trial Magistrate has adversely commenced on the prosecution case and delivered a Judgment in STC. No. 454/95 in Tamil in the following words:

(3.) POINT : As already stated there are 11 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and out of 11 witnesses only three witnesses were examined and the rest of them were not examined on the side of the prosecution. It seems from the Judgment of the learned Magistrate that several summons were issued to those witnesses, and the final communication was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, and in spite of summons and the communication to the Superintendent of Police, the learned Magistrate could not secure the presence of the persons to be examined as witnesses in this case. It appears from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that no coercive steps have been taken as against any one of the witnesses, who were not examined.