IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS /

SUBORDINATE JUDGE AT TIRUVALLUR

Present: Tmt.R. UMA, B.A., M.L.,
Assistant Sessions / Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur
Wednesday, the 17th day of November, 2021
Sessions Case No.5/2020
(CNR No. TNTR1C0000212020)

Cr. No.593/2016 of Pattabiram Police Station

P.R.C. No.25/2017 of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur

1. Name of the Complainant : State by Inspector of Police,

Pattabiram Police Station

2. Name of the Accused : A1 Suresh, S/o Madhavan

A2 Balaji, S/o Madhavan

A1 is the resident of No.6, Indira

Gandhi Street, Devarajapuram,

Pattabiram, Chennai-72 .

A2 is the resident of No.12, 2nd Street,

Gopalapuram, Thandurai, Pattabiram,

Chennai-72
3. Charge(s) against the Accused : Charges against all the accused :

1. Wrongfully restraining with

criminal intention u/s 341 IPC

2. Abusing any person in filthy

language u/s 294(b) IPC

 2

3. Voluntarily causing hurt in

prosecution of common object

u/s 323 IPC

4. Robbery u/s 392 IPC.

5. Robbery with an attempt to

cause death or grievous hurt u/s

397 IPC.

6. Criminal Intimidation with

object of causing death or

grievous injuries u/s 506(ii)

4. Plea of the Accused : Not guilty.

5. Findings of the Judge : That the Accused are found not guilty

of the charges.

6. Judgment of the Court : In the result, the Accused are found

not guilty of the offences under

Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397,

506(ii) IPC. Accordingly, the Accused

are acquitted under Section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the above said offences.

The bail bond executed by the

 3

Accused are ordered to be cancelled

after lapse of appeal time or if any

appeal is preferred, after disposal of

appeal.

M.O.1 produced in this case is

ordered to be destroyed after lapse of

appeal time or if any appeal is

preferred, after disposal of appeal.

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Thiru.

S. Govindaraj, learned Additional Prosecutor and M/s V.Thuyavan, M.Velu,

M.G. Thamizhan, learned counsel appearing for the accused and upon hearing

the arguments of both sides, upon perusal of all connected material records

and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court pronounced

the following :

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, T-9 Pattabiram Police Station laid Final Report

against the accused persons stating that on 16.08.2016, at about 7.00 AM,

when the defacto complainant namely Rajkumar, S/o Ethiraj was driving a

Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-20-CH-3036, with load of goods, and was

coming near Nemilicherry 400 Feet road, both the accused A1 and A2

wrongfully restrained the said lorry, restrained the defacto complainant,

 4

abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with hands causing hurt, and

also threatened him to give the money in possession, and when the defacto

complainant refused to do so, A1 caught hold of both hands of defacto

complainant on his backside, A2 had robbed Rs.1000/- from his pocket, in

consequences, when the defacto complainant made hue and cry for help, the

accused with the intention to cause death or grievous injuries had tried to stab

him on his stomach. The defacto complainant narrowly escaped from such

stabbing without hurt. In consequences of the same, both the accused showing

the knife had criminally intimidated and threatened the defacto complainant

with dire consequences, thereby A1 and A2 appear to have committed offences

u/s. 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC. On receipt of complaint from the

defacto-complainant Rajkumar, a case was registered and investigation was

taken up. After completion of investigation, the investigating Officer filed

Final Report u/s. 341, 294(b), 323 , 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC as against the both

accused persons.

2. On the above Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Tiruvallur has taken up cognizance of the offence in PRC No.25/2017 and

after appearance of the accused, copies of all material documents were

furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence involved u/s

397 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur has subsequently committed the case under

 5

Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for trial before the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court,

Tiruvallur. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court felt that a prima facie case

was made out against the accused, taken on file of the above case as Sessions

Case No.5/2020 and the same was made over to this Court for disposal as per

the Proceedings in D.No. 637/SC/2020 dated 24.01.2020. After the receipt of

the case records, Notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor and summons to

both the accused were issued.

3. This Court, on consideration of the materials available on records

and after hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the entire case

records, has framed charges against the accused u/s 341, 294(b), 323 , 392,

397, 506(ii) IPC and when the charges were read over, explained and

questioned to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Thereupon, this case was posted for trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, on the prosecution side

3 witnesses were examined and 8 exhibits and one material object were

marked. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

5. The substance of the prosecution case projected by the evidence

of prosecution witnesses would be as follows:

P.W.1, Rajkumar is the defacto complainant. He deposed that he is

residing at Sekkadu Village. He does not know anything about the case and

does not know anything about the contents in the complaint, also he does not
 6

know whether he was enquired by the police or not, P.W.1 denied the contents

of the complaint. His signature in the complaint alone was marked as Ex-P1.

Since his evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, PW1 was

treated as hostile.

PW2 Sekar, the occurrence witness cited as the friend of PW1 who

accompanied PW1 in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-CH-3036 at the

time of the alleged occurrence. He deposed that he don't know anything about

the occurrence. Since his evidence did not support the case of the prosecution,

he was also treated as hostile.

P.W.3 Lawrence is now working as Inspector of Police of Pattabiram

Police Station. He deposed that he was giving evidence based on the records

in this case. He has deposed that on 16.08.2016, when Tmt. Priyadharshini

was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Pattabiram Police Station, she

received Ex.P2 complaint given by PW1 Rajkumar and based on the said

complaint, she registered Ex.P3 FIR in Crime No.593/2016 for the offence u/s

341, 294(b), 323, 397, 506(ii) IPC as against A1 and A2. She went to the

place of occurrence on the same day and enquired the witnesses PW2 Mohan

and other witness Rajamani, recorded their statements, at about 20.15 Hrs, in

the presence of witnesses Arun and Pradeep prepared Ex.P4 Observation

Mahazar and Ex.P5 Rough sketch. Thereafter, on 17.08.2016 at about 5.30

AM, she arrested the accused A1 Suresh near Pattabiram 400 Feet Road
 7

Ramapuram Junction, and recorded the confession statement voluntarily given

by A1 in the presence of witnesses Anandhan and Rooban. Based on Ex.P6 the

admitted portion in the confession statement of the Accused A1 leading to the

discovery of the M.O.1 two knives which was produced by A1 near the

Amman Temple Ramapuram Junction on the same day at 6.45 PM, and seized

the same under Ex.P7 seizure mahazar. Thereafter, she sent the accused A1 to

the Court for remand along with the property of two knives under Ex.P8

Form-91. Thereafter, she submitted the case records to the Inspector of Police

for investigation. The Inspector of Police took up the investigation, since the

witnesses have given same evidence as it was given before the Sub Inspector

of Police, he did not record the statements of the witnesses afresh. After

completion of the investigation and after getting the opinion of the Deputy

Director of Prosecution, the Inspector of Police, laid the Final Report against

the accused persons under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) IPC.

The prosecution evidence was closed with P.W.3.

6. When the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of

Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution evidences as false and they stated that

they don't have witnesses on their side. So, the defence evidence was closed

and both sides arguments heard.  

 8

7. Now the point for consideration and determination is to see

whether the charges levelled against the accused and guilt of

the accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt?

8. POINT:

Both side heard.  

The Arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor:

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argue that though P.W.1

and PW2 turned hostile, as per the evidence of P.W.3, statements from the

defacto complainant, eye-witnesses and attesting witness to the observation

and seizure mahazar were recorded, investigation was conducted by the

Inspector of Police and material object was also recovered by him. So, as per

evidence of P.W.3, the prosecution has clearly proved the occurrence beyond

any reasonable doubt. So, the accused may be convicted.

The Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Defence:

The learned counsel for the defence would argue that there were no eye

witnesses to say about the occurrence. Even the defacto-complainant, i.e.

P.W.1 failed to reveal the occurrence and also to support his own complaint

which was allegedly given to the concerned police. PW2 who is alleged to be

an occurrence witness is also a complete hostile witness. So, the prosecution

 9

has miserably failed to prove the occurrence. Hence, the accused may be

acquitted.  

9. The case of the prosecution is, the defacto-complainant Rajkumar

is the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-20-CH-3036 and that on

16.08.2016, at about 7.00 AM when he was driving his lorry with load near

Nemilicherry 400 Feet road, both A1 and A2 wrongfully restrained the defacto

complainant’s vehicle, abused him in filthy language, and assaulted him with

hands, and also A1 caught hold of both hands defacto complainant on his

backside, A2 had robbed Rs.1000/- from his pocket, and tried to stab him on

his stomach, with the intention to cause death of grievious injuries, thereby

appeared to have committed the offences punishable U/s.341, 294(b), 323,

392, 397, 506(ii) IPC.

10. In order to prove the prosecution case, totally 3 witnesses were

examined and 8 exhibits and one material object were marked.

11. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 is the defacto-

complainant and occurrence witness. P.W.2 is also occurrence eye-witness.

But, both PW1 and PW2 have entirely not supported the case of the

prosecution and they have failed to depose about the occurrence and turned

hostile. Thus, the occurrence as allegedly committed by the accused persons is

not proved.
 10

12. Then, considering the observation mahazar and the seizure

mahazar to prove the place of occurrence and seizure of material object, the

prosecution has cited LW4 Arun and LW5 as observation mahazar witnesses

and LW6 Anandan and LW7 Rooban as Confession and Seizure Mahazar

witnesses. But, none of the witness has been examined on the side of the

prosecution to prove the alleged place of occurrence as well as the seizure of

M.O.1 knives.

13. As far as the complaint is concerned, the defacto-complainant,

i.e. P.W.1 has not only failed to reveal the occurrence, but also, failed to

support his own complaint which was allegedly given to the concerned police.

Though P.W.3, the Inspector of Police spoke about receiving complaint from

the defacto complainant by LW8 Sub Inspector of Police, the author of the

complaint failed to state about his complaint. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 will

not be helpful to the prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P2 complaint. So,

this Court considers that the prosecution failed to prove the complaint also.

14. In this case, specifically there is no reason assigned by the

prosecution for non-examination of LW8 Sub Inspector of Police namely Tmt.

Priyadharshini, who allegedly received the complaint, went to the place of

occurrence, prepared Observation mahazar, seizure mahazr, arrested A1 on

17.08.2016 and recorded his confession statement and based on such

 11

confession leading to the discovery, seized M.O.1 knives, and the

Investigating Officer LW9 Thiru. Mukesh, Inspector of Police who had

completed the investigation and laid the Charge Sheet. Only the present

Inspector of Police, Pattabiram Police Station has been examined as PW3.

Though he has narrated the registering of complaint till the investigation done

by LW8 and LW9, PW3 would admit that his evidence is based only on

records and he is not the investigating Officer in this case. Therefore, in the

absence of attesting witnesses to Observation Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar and

confession statement, and as there is no other attesting witness available to

speak about the preparation of mahazars and seizure of material object, this

Court considers that the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar and the

confession statement of A1 are not proved.

15. Though PW3 has deposed about the investigation done by LW8

and LW9, the only witnesses available , viz. the defacto complainant and PW1

and accompanying occurrence witness PW2 have not supported the

prosecution case and turned hostile. Since the occurrence, seizure and

confession are not proved, the evidence of P.W.3 alone is not sufficient to

prove the case of the prosecution and all the alleged offence as against both the

accused persons.
 12

16. So, on conjoint reading of the entire evidences and documents

and on considering the evidences adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that

the only prosecution witnesses whom are cited as occurrence witnesses who

have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile, this Court is not able to

consider that the prosecution has proved the case as the accused persons have

committed the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.  While considering

the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the

prosecution has failed to prove the offences as against accused persons u/s.

IPC 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC and so, the accused persons are

found not guilty of the above said offences.

In the result, the Accused are found not guilty of the offences under

Sections 341, 294(b) 323, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC. Accordingly, the Accused are

acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences.

The bail bond executed by the Accused are ordered to be cancelled after

lapse of appeal time or if any appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal.

M.O.1 (Two knives) produced in this case is ordered to be destroyed

after lapse of appeal time or if any appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal.

Dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, directly to the computer, typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 17 th day of
November 2021.
Sd/- R. UMA,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS/ SUBORDINATE JUDGE,
TIRUVALLUR
 13

ANNEXURE:

1. List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Prosecution:-

Name of the witnesses Date of Chief Date of Cross

Examination examination
PW1 Thiru. Rajkumar, 23.01.2021 23.01.2021
PW2 Thiru. Mohan, 09.02.2021 09.02.2021
PW3 Thiru. Lawrence, 29.09.2021 29.09.2021
Inspector of Police

2. List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 16.08.2016 Signature of PW1 in the Complaint

Ex.P2 16.08.2016 Complaint
Ex.P3 16.08.2016 First Information Report
Ex.P4 16.08.2016 Observation Mahazar
Ex.P5 16.08.2016 Rough Sketch
Ex.P6 17.08.2016 Admitted portion in the confession statement of
A1
Ex.P7 17.08.2016 Mahazar
Ex.P8 17.08.2016 Form - 91

3. Material Objects on the side of the Prosecution:

M.O.1 Two nos. of small knives

4. List of Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects on the side of the

Defence: - Nil –
 14

5. CASE SUMMARY
(As per Hon’ble High Court, Madras ROC No.814/2020/RG/F1 and P.Dis.No.36/2021 dt.
07.04.2021)

(i) Period of Remand of the A1 - 17.08.2016 to 12.09.2016

Accused
A2 - 17.08.2016 to 12.09.2016

(ii) Date of filing of the Final Report 25.07.2017

in the Court

(iii) Date of committal of the case to 02.01.2020

the Court of Sessions

(iv) Date of questioning of Accused 09.12.2020.

u/s 228 Cr.P.C.

(v) Filing of Miscellaneous CMP No.44/2021 filed by

Petitions (except routine Prosecution u/s 311 Crp.C.
petitions like petitions u/s 317
allowed on 22.09.2021
Cr.P.C.)

(vi) Date of Examination of Accused 07.10.2021

u/s 313(1) (b) CrPC.

(vii) Details of Abscondance of NIL

Accused

(viii) Grant of Stay by superior Courts NIL

and results thereof.

Sd/- R. UMA,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS/ SUBORDINATE JUDGE,
TIRUVALLUR.
15

Judgment in
S.C.No 5/2020
D.D : 17.11.2021
Assistant Sessions Court
Thiruvallur