THE CENTRE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. YOGAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the prosecution is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal, dated December, 11, 2012 passed by the learned sessions judge, Andaman & Nicobar islands, Port Blair, in Sessions Case No. 020 of 2000 (Ss. Trial No 13 of September, 2002)

(2.) THE case has its genesis in the First Information Report, lodged on March 26, 1997 by K.M. Hanif. The de facto complainant alleged that Rashida Banu was the wife of his brother Khalil. She had her share in a piece of land. The accused Arunachalam once used to run a pan shop on that piece of land which was subsequently dismantled by the order of Municipal Council. That was the beginning of a dispute between Rashida and S.P. Arunachalam and his son Yogavalli who tried to construct a house forcibly on that plot of land which was stopped by Rashida Banu. On March 24 -25, 1997 at around 2.30 a.m. Arunachalam, Yogavalli, Arumugam, a driver, Mr. Basu, Navamani and eight or ten others arrived at the spot in a car and a taxi belonging to one Raghupati with various construction materials. Rashida Banu and the de facto complainant asked them not to construct any house. A quarrel ensued. Some habitants of the slum gathered around and the intruders had all escaped.

(3.) ON the basis of this complaint investigation was taken up. Subsequently Central Bureau of Investigation investigated into the matter and submitted a charge sheet on December 31, 1998 under sections 302/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was subsequently committed to the court of sessions. At the court of sessions charges were framed against the accused persons, viz A. Ravi, P. Raghupati, R. Yogavalli, M. Arumugam and M. Navamani under the above provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Out of them Yogavalli, Arumugam and Navamani faced trial in the court below as the other two had absconded during the pendency of the trial.