State by Inspector of
Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. N. Rajamanickam & Ors.  INSC 1573 (16
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.
learned counsel for the parties.
granted in S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1636 of 2002.
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 injurieson 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.
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.
counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the
is to be noted that A-8, who was one of the accused- respondents had died in
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,