Facts regarding cross-case
9. Admittedly on 04.11.2004 at about 09.30 a.m., at the scene of the crime there was a fishing auction. In the auction both parties participated, in which there were quarrels between them. Therefore, each group attacked with each other and sustained injuries. Initially, the second appellant’s side lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.117 of 2004 for the very same offences in Crime No.118 of 2004. However, the respondent completed the investigation and filed a final report in Crime No.118 of 2004 and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.64 of 2006 as against 27 accused persons. Though each and every accused had a specific overt act except A.1, A.3, A.12 and A. 24, other accused were acquitted by the trial Court.
Proceedings of the trial court
11. In so far as the second appellant/A.3 is concerned, he attacked P.W.1. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 revealed that the third accused attacked him on his head with an iron rod Therefore, he sustained injuries on his head. He also deposed that other accused persons attacked him on his shoulder and his leg with a wooden log and chain. However, other accused persons were acquitted and third accused convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. That apart, admittedly, the present complaint was a counter complaint to the original complaint lodged by the second appellant’s group, which was registered in Crime No.117 of 2004 for the very same offence. However, the respondent failed to file a final report, at the same time filed a final report only in the counter claim and the same had been taken cognizance by the trial Court and proceeded with the trial. After two years, the respondent completed the investigation and filed a final report and the same had been taken cognizance by the trial Court. However, some of the accused were abroad and as such, the case was split up on three occasions and acquitted some of the accused and convicted some of the accused to pay fines.
Procedural irregularities in trial
12. It is also seen that there are discrepancies between prosecution witnesses in so far as the specific overt act of the third accused is concerned, Further, the prosecution also suppressed the fact before the trial Court that an earlier complaint was registered in Crime No. 117 of 2004 and no charge sheet was laid at the time of filing the charge sheet in Crime No. 118 of 2004. It is a settled position of law that once counter complaint is there, the police have to follow the procedure laid down under Police Standing Orders 588- A. Once the Police filed aggressor in both the F.I.R and filed final report, the trial Court has to conduct a simultaneous trial in both cases. Whereas in the case on hand, the trial Court conducted a trial only on the counter complaint and no cognizance had been taken of the first complaint lodged by the second appellant’s group.
Prosecution suppressed the first complaint
13. It is also seen that the prosecution suppressed the first complaint and charge sheeted before the trial Court. Hence, once the Court came to a finding that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and also failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, the only possible and probable course left open was to grant the benefit of doubt to the second appellant.
Accused Acquitted.
Party
Aanaa @ Abdhul Kadhar (died) vs. The Inspector of Police, Meemisal, Kottaipattinam Police Station, Pudukkottai District. Crime No.118 of 2004 – CRL. A (MD).No. 636 of 2007 – 29.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/874463
