Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


A.Chinnasamy v. Karuppusamy - CRL.RC.729 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2156 (4 July 2007)


DATED: 04.07.2007



A.Chinnasamy .. Petitioner -vs-













13.Rangasamy(since died)






19. State by

Inspector of Police,

Perundurai Police Station

Kanchikoil Police Station Limit

Erode District

(Cr.No.28/2001) .. Respondents

This Revision is filed against the Judgment of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Perundurai in C.C.No.203 of 2001 dated 15.4.2005. For petitioner :: Mr.C.Prakasam For respondents :: Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian Addl. Public Prosecutor-R19 Notice served No appearance-R1 to R18.


This revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.203 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. 2)The complainant in C.C.No.203 of 2001 is the revision petitioner herein. According to the prosecution, the accused have trespassed into the land of P.W.1/revision petitioner herein in survey No.75/2, Natham Poramboke measuring 9 cents with deadly weapons on 27.4.2001 at about 11.00.a.m., and tried to evacuate P.W.1 from the said Natham Poramboke land and that the accused at the time of occurrence have also abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Hence A1 to A14 were charged under Sections 148,448,294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and A15 to A18 were charged under Sections 148 r/w 109 and 448 r/w 109 ,294(b) r/w 109 and 506(ii) r/w 109 of IPC . 3) The case was taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and after issuing summons for the appearance of the accused and on their appearance ,copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

4) On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined. Exs P1 to P5 were exhibited. No material objects were marked. 5) P.W.1 is the complainant Chinnasamy. Even though he was not treated as a hostile witness, in his evidence before the trial Court, he will give a go by to what he has stated regarding the facts in Ex P1 complaint. As P.W.1, he would state that only A2, A16, A18 and A1 came with dangerous weapons like crowbar and aruval and that they dug a pit in the place where the road has been formed and that in this connection, there is a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court and he would depose before the Court that the accused have threatened him to roast him in fire , if he failed to vacate the land in which he is in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 35 years which is situate on the east of his house at Kannuvelampalayam Village. According to him, one Periasamy, Muthuvel and Ponnusamy are all eye witnesses. But no eye witness was examined in this case. So the evidence of P.W1 is diametrically opposite to the facts, he has stated in his complaint Ex P1. 5a) P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, who would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the fact that the accused have obstructed for laying a road near the place of occurrence. P.W.3 would depose that on the date of occurrence, the accused Karuppusamy, Palani along with other accused came there with deadly weapons like Aruval, Log and Crowbar and tried to put up huts. Even though, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence, according to P.W.1, he would say that the accused have abused P.W.1 by his caste in filthy language. 5b) P.W.4 would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the fact that the accused have threatened P.W.1 to roast him in fire, if he failed to obey the accused which is not there in ExP1. P.W.5 is also not an eye witness to the occurrence but would corroborate the evidence of P.W.4 to the facts which are not in Ex P1 complaint. 5c) P.W.6 also followed the suit of P.W4 and P.W.5. P.W.7 is the hostile witness. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the mahazar witnesses. 5d) P.W.10 is a Deputy Tahsildar, who would depose that Survey No.75/2 has been assigned in the name of P.W.1 and there was a dispute arose between P.W.1 and the accused in connection with the grant of patta in respect of Survey No.75/2 in the name of P.W.1 and that he gave Ex P3 report to the Inspector of Police, Perunthurai stating that P.W.1 is in possession of Survey No.75/2 which is admittedly a Natham Poramboke land. 5e) P.W.11 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikoil Police Station, who had registered a case on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Ex P1 in Crime No.28 of 2001 against the accused under Sections 147,148,447,294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Ex P4 is the First Information report. 5f) P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer, who had took up investigation , visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P2 Observation Mahazar and has drawn Ex P5 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing formalities ,P.W.12 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, they would totally deny their complicity with the crime. They have not let in any evidence in defence.

7.After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them,which necessitated P.W.1, to prefer this revision.

8. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned trial Judge is perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court?.

9. Heard Mr. C.Prakasam,learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-R19 and considered their rival submissions.

10.The Point: Even though P.W.1 would depose that there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence viz., Periasamy, Muthuvel and Ponnusamy, he has not examined any one of them in support of his case. Even the place of occurrence as per Ex P1 complaint preferred by him differs , from the deposition of P.W.1. In Ex P1 complaint, P.W.1 would state that the occurrence had taken place in 9 cents of Natham Poramboke land which is in his possession. But as P.W.1, the revision petitioner herein would depose that the place of occurrence is at the road. The criminal act alleged against the accused under Ex P1 is that they made attempt to put up huts in the land of 9 cents in natham poramboke land under his possession. But before the Court as P.W.1, he would depose that the accused began to dig a pit in the road . In Ex P1, P.W.1 would state that at the time of occurrence the accused were found in possession of deadly weapons like crowbar and Aruval. But no weapon was recovered from the accused and produced before the trial Court by the prosecution. According to P.W1, before the trial Court, the accused at the time of occurrence have threatened him to roast him in fire but in Ex P1 complaint, there is no mention about the alleged threat . In the complaint, the complainant/P.W1 would state that the accused have abused him in filthy language but before the A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J

sg. Court he as P.W.1, has not alleged that the accused have abused him in filthy language at the time of occurrence.

11. Only under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt to warrant conviction. Hence , I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned trial Judge which does not warrant any interference from this Court. The point is answered accordingly.

12. In fine, the revision is dismissed ,confirming the Judgment in C.C.NO.203 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. 4.07.2007 Index:yes




1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Perundurai. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.