STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU v.

N. RAJAMANICKAM AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR.  ARIJIT  PASAYAT,  J.  1.  Heard  learned  counsel  for  the parties.

2. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1636 of 2002.

3. Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2002 has been filed by the State

questioning correctness of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of

the  Madras  High  Court.  The  appeal  filed  by  the  respondents

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  accused’)  was  allowed  while  the

criminal revision petition filed by PW-1, the brother of the deceased

was dismissed  by the  impugned  judgment.  Originally,  16  persons

were named in the charge-sheet. Out of them, one had died and one

was absconding.  The rest  14  persons  faced  trial.  The Trial  Court

convicted  6  out  of  them  who  had  faced  trial.  Those  six  persons

preferred the criminal  appeal  while the informant  filed the revision

petition questioning the acquittal of rest of the accused persons. The

High Court found that there were certain vital factors which rendered

the prosecution version improbable. Some of the factors noted are

the  delayed  despatch  and  receipt  of  the  FIR  and  connected

documents in the court of Magistrate. The non-explanation of injuries

on some of the accused persons was held to be of consequence. It

was  held  that  there  was  a  clash  amongst  the  members  of

complainant  party  and  the  accused  persons  over  political  factors.

The High Court noted that there was no explanation offered for the

delayed receipt of the FIR and connected documents, Exhs. P-1 and

P-22. Added to that, the High Court found that the evidence of PW-1

lacked  credibility  and  cogency.  With  these  observations,  the  High

Court allowed the appeal filed by the convicted accused persons and

dismissed the revision petition filed by the informant.

4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant-

State  and the  informant  submitted  that  the  factors  which weighed

with the High Court to direct acquittal have no legal basis.

5.  Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  on  the  other  hand,

supported the judgment of the High Court.

6.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  A-8,  who  was  one  of  the  accused-

respondents had died in the meantime.  

7. Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected documents in all

cases cannot be a factor corroding the credibility of the prosecution

version. But that is not the only factor which weighed with the High

Court. Added to that, the High Court has noted the artificiality of the

evidence of PW-1 and the non-explanation of injuries on the accused

persons which were very serious in nature. The combined effect of

these factors certainly deserved consideration and, according to us,

the High Court has rightly emphasized on them to hold that the

prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations.

Singularly, the factors may not have adverse effect on the

prosecution version. But when a combined effect of the factors noted

by the High Court are taken into consideration, the inevitable

conclusion is that these are cases where no interference is called for.

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.