N. Janakiraman vs State and Others

K. Natarajan, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II,

Karur in C.C. No. 405 of 1996, dated 15-7-1997.

The short facts are :--

P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The accused are brothers. There is prior enmity between the P.Ws. and the accused regard-ing a vacant

site. At the time of the occurrence, P.W. 1 was engaged in manufacturing rubber stamps and he was living at No. 10, Gurusamy Naidu Street, at

Karur. At 10.00 p.m. on 15-1-1996, when P.W. 4 came down, from his house, the accused picked up a quarrel and beat P.W. 1 with a stick on

his left cheek and lip. When P.W. 2, his wife came to prevent the same, the second beat her on the left leg palm with a stick and caused a grievous

injury. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the police station and lodged a report, Ex. P-1, on which a case in Crime No. 358 of 1996 was

registered by the Karur Police Station. P.W. 4, the doctor who examined P.W. I found a lacerated injury about 3"" x 1/4"" subsutaneous deep on

the left side face and another lacerated injury On the lower lip measuring about 3"" x 1/4"" muscle deep and certified that both the injuries are simple

in nature. The same has been exhibited as Ex. P-3. P.W. 4 found a contusion over the left foot about 4"" x 4"" and an abrasion over the left elbow 3

x 3"" and multiple abrasion over the left wrist. On examining P:W. 2. According to the doctor, injury No. 1 is grievous and the other two injuries are

simple.

The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Karur took the case on file as C.C. No. 405 of 1996. Eight witnesses were examined on the site of the

prosecution including P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 who are said to be the neighbours and eye-witnesses to the occurrence have turned hostile.

P.Ws. 4, 7 and 8 supported the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Magistrate concluded that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is interest and that P.Ws. 3, 5

and 6 turned hostile and there is possibility of the injuries being caused by P.Ws. 1 and 2 falling in a ditch near the place of occurrence and the

non-examination of the mahazar-witness is fatal to the prosecution. Ultimately, he held that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them, the correctness of which is being challenged in this revision.

The point for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused is manifestly wrong and perverse?

It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner the main ground on which the accused have been acquitted by the trial Court is P.Ws. 1 and

2, the injured eyewitnesses are husband and wife and they are interested-witnesses and P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6, the independent eye-witnesses have

tuened hostile and that the probability of the Injuries being sustained by the victims falling in the ditch near the place of occurrence and non-

examination of the mahazar-wit-nesses. It was pointed out there is no proposition in law that the evidence of interested-witnesses shall be brushed

aside and that the accused can be convicted only if independent witnesses depose supporting the prosecution. Except the suggestion P.Ws. 1 and

2 fell in the ditch hearby, there is no acceptable evidence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused have not examined

any witnesses to support that version and the mere non-examination of the mahazar-witness will not shake the foundation of the prosecution case.

I read the judgment of the trial Court, carefully and I am pained to note the learned trial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence of P.Ws. 1

and 2 and has given any reasons as to how their evidence is suspect. It is true that independent-witnesses have turned hostile. It is settled law the

mere fact that independent-witnesses have turned hostile will not be a ground to acquit the accused. The only criterian regarding the evidence of

interested-witnesses is it should be analysed with the utmost care and caution and on such analysis if the evidence of interested-witnessed is found

suspect, then the Court can reject the same and if it is otherwise, there is no bar for the Court to act on the evidence of the interested-witnesses.

Normally, the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal unless it is an exceptional case and the order of the lower Court is found to

be manifestly wrong and perverse. If any authority is needed, I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Vimal Singh Vs.

Khuman Singh and Another, But, at the same time, if the High Court, is . of the view that the judgment of acquittal of the lower Court is manifestly

wrong and perverse, there is nothing wrong in interfering with the order of the lower Court and passing appropriate orders to meet the ends of

justice. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused has relied on several decisions and the principle stressed in all the decisions is the

same,namely,ordinarily the High Court will not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless the judgment of the lower Court is palbably wrong and

perverse. In the case on hand, as already pointed out the learned trial Magistrate has not discussed the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the injured eye-

witnesses, but he had rejected the same on the ground that they are interested witnesses without assigning any reasons. The objection raised on

behalf of the respondents/accused that there are inconsistencies between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is a matter to be agitated before the trial

Court and not before this Court. I am satisfied that the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the accused on the main ground that the

injured eye-witnesses are interested witnesses and that the mahazar-witness has not been examined is manifestly wrong and perverse and,

therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Magistrate for fresh trial according to law. The

learned trial Magistrate shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and the records.