Full Judgment
Prayer
Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order of acquittal made in S.T.C.No.445 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, dated 03.12.2011.
ORDER
1. The de-facto complainant, based on whose information a case was registered on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station as Crime No.702 of 2010, and the final report submitted therein was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul as S.T.C.No.445 of 2010, has come forward with the present Criminal Revision Case against the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents 1 to 4, who figured as the accused No. 1 to 4.
2. The prosecution case proceeds as follows:
On 06.08.2010, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.2-Kala was doing house-hold work and at that point of time, all the respondents 1 to 4(A1 to A4) abused P.W.2 using filthy language, assaulted her with sticks and brooms and caused simple injuries. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3/Rajammal, the mother-in- law of P.W.2. P.W.1-Yogaraj, who came to the place of occurrence after hearing the news about the occurrence, collected information from P.Ws 2 and 3 and sent P.W.2 in an auto-rickshaw to the hospital for treatment and then he proceeded towards the police station to lodge a complaint. On 06.08.2010 itself, he lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 alleging commission of offence of causing annoyance of others by using obscene language in a public place punishable under Section 294 I.P.C, by the respondents herein(A1 to A4) against P.W.2 an offence of wrongful restraint punishable under Section 341 I.P.C and an offence of causing simple hurt punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. However, P.W.6, who received the complaint did not register any First Information Report and kept it as a petition assigning petition number. 709 of 2010. Subsequently, P.W.8, the then Sub-Inspector of Police came to notice the said complaint on 12.08.2010 pursuant to which he registered a case in the above said crime number for offences punishable under the penal provisions cited supra. For registering the case, he prepared Ex.P5-First Information Report. Thereafter, P.W.8 conducted investigation and during investigation, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar under Ex.P6 and Rough Sketch under Ex.P7. The alleged injured, namely P.W.2 was treated by P.W.7-Dr.Illango Muniyappan at the Government General Hospital, Dindigul and Ex.P4-Wound Certificate was issued. P.W.8, after completion of investigation, submitted a final report, alleging commission by the respondents 1 to 4 herein of all the three offences for which the case was registered as per the First Information Report.
3. The said First Information Report was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul who decided to try the case as Summary Trial Case. Accordingly, the case was assigned S.T.C.No.445 of 2010. Since the respondents 1 to 4, on appearance, denied the charges, a trial was conducted in which 8 witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 to 8 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 on the side of the prosecution. No witness was examined as defense witness and no document was marked on the side of the accused. On either side, no material object was produced.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after analysing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt even in respect of any one of the offences for which the respondents 1 to 4 were prosecuted and accordingly pronounced a judgement on 03.12.2011 acquitting all the four accused persons, namely respondents 1 to 4 herein. As against the said judgment of acquittal, the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal. Challenging the correctness and legality of the said judgment incorporating a finding that the charges made against the respondents 1 to 4 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitting the respondents 1 to 4, P.W.1 has chosen to prefer this Criminal Revision on various grounds set out in the grounds of revision.
5. This Court after hearing the submissions of Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, perused the copy of the judgment, grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers which includes the testimonies of P.Ws.1,2,3,7 and 8. Upon such consideration, this Court comes to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has not made out a case even for admission of the revision for a detailed hearing and that the revision is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself for reasons that appear hereunder.
6. Though the occurrence allegedly took place at 4.00 p.m. on 06.08.2010 according to the prosecution case and the incident was reported to the Police on the same day by P.W.1, the Police did not register a case till 12.08.2010. The reason assigned by the prosecution is that the police officer who received the complaint chose to treat it as a petition and assigned petition number 709 of 2010 for which a receipt was issued on the same day. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.8, the then sub-Inspector of Police, came across the said complaint which had been assigned petition number and thereafter registered a case preparing Ex.P5-First Information Report. The First Information Report was prepared on 12.08.2010. The explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay in registering the First Information Report and submitting the First Information Report to the Court has been meticulously considered by the Court below and on a proper appreciation of evidence, the Court below has come to the correct conclusion that the explanation offered by the prosecution could not be accepted.
7. Apart from the fact that there is no discretion available to the Police than to register a case when the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, the case of the prosecution that a complaint was received on 06.08.2010 itself cannot be believed. What was the purpose sought to be served by assigning a petition number to the complaint is not seen from the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. The Police Officer who is said to have received the complaint and assigned a petition number has not done anything after the receipt of the complaint and assigning a petition number to it. There is no evidence to show that any informal enquiry was conducted as a prelude to the registration of the case. At the helm of the affairs, this Court finds that even the receipt alleged to have been issued on 06.08.2010 itself has not been produced by the prosecution as a document in support of the prosecution case. When such is the case, the finding of the trial Court that there was delay of 6 days in registering the case that the delay was sought to be explained by wrongly stating that the complaint is initially treated as a petition and thereafter the criminal case was registered by preparing the First Information Report; cannot be interfered with since the said finding is based on sound reasonings.
8. P.W.1 is not a victim of the occurrence. He is also not projected as an eye-witness. He admits that he came to the place of occurrence only after hearing the news about the occurrence and thereafter, based on the information collected from P.Ws.2 and 3, he lodged a complaint with the Police. The injuries sustained by P.W.2 are simple in nature. They are only two (1) an abrasion measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the left shoulder and (2) a contusion on the left wrist measuring 3 cm x 1 cm. The said injuries have been certified to be simple in nature under Ex.P4-Wound Certificate. Of course, it is true that the Medical Officer, who treated P.W.2 has deposed that P.W.2 informed him that the said injuries were caused by four persons. But while referring to the weapons used, it is his testimony that he was informed by the injured that the injuries were caused by the assailants with a wooden log( fl;il ), whereas the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the contents of Ex.P1 are to the effect that sticks and brooms were the objects used as weapons of offence. When there is such discrepancy, the non-recovery of the said material objects assumes some kind of significance.
9. The injuries sustained by P.W.2 were simple in nature. Hence there was no necessity to get her admitted as an inpatient. However, as per the prosecution case, she was admitted and given treatment as an inpatient. If it was so, then the hospital authorities should have sent an intimation to the police. Such an intimation is absent in this case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the hospital authorities were informed that the Police were already informed and that was the reason why the Medical Officer did not send any intimation to the Police. Even if it is assumed that the intimation would not have been sent on the oral information of the patient that already the police had been informed, the police after receiving the intimation would not have chosen to keep quiet without going to the hospital to record the statement of the injured(P.W.2). Normally, in case of simple injuries, the complaint will be lodged by the injured either directly to the police or while taking treatment in the hospital. In this case, why P.W.2 did not chose to give a complaint and P.W.1 was assigned the job of giving a complaint has not been explained. At least, the complaint could have been lodged by a person, who had witnessed the occurrence. Admittedly P.W.1 was not an eyewitness. In addition, the genesis of occurrence as spoken to by P.W.1 and as reflected in Ex.P1, differs from the version of the injured. P.W.1 has stated that his wife(P.W.2) was intercepted on her way and then abusive language was used besides beating her with brooms and sticks. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are to the effect that while P.W.2 was in her house doing house-hold works, the accused persons came to the house and committed the said offence. As such the place of occurrence itself is in doubt. Though the prosecution witnesses P.Ws 2 and 3 have stated that there were several persons witnessing the occurrence, no disinterested witness(independent witness) has been examined to corroborate the version of P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.3 is none other than the mother-in-law of P.W.2 and the case is sought to be proved by the testimonies of close relatives, who are members of the very same family. It should be noticed that the mahazar witnesses who are said to have attested the observation Mahazar-Ex.P6 have not supported the prosecution case regarding the preparation of the mahazar on a particular day. They have simply admitted having signed it. So many lacunae are found in the prosecution case. As indicated supra, in the light of said discrepancies, we cannot come to the conclusion that the decision arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate raising serious doubt regarding the prosecution version and the judgment rendered holding the accused not guilty of the offence with which they stood charged, cannot be said to be defective, infirm or incorrect. There is no defect or infirmity in the judgment pronounced by the Court below. The revision fails and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold itself.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.