CRL A/206/2022 of SUNDHAR Vs STATE REP BY on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, in Spl.S.C.No.19/2018 dated 16.08.2019 against the accused A1 to A4/Respondents 2 to 5 herein.

2. The charges levelled against A1 to A4 are as follows: A1 Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2026, 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 (2 counts), 323 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 r/w 34 I.P.C., 342 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.c and 506(ii) I.P.C rw 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Acquitted of the charges

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 amended Act 1/2016 A2 Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2026, 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 r/w 34 I.P.C, 323 I.P.C r/w 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016, 342 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 3(2)

(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act

Acquitted of the charges A3 Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2026, 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 r/w 34 I.P.C, 342 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 Acquitted of the charges A4 Section 3243(1)(s) I.P.C. r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 r/w 34 I.P.C, 323 I.P.C. r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act 1/2016 r/w 34 I.P.C., 342 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amended Act

Acquitted of the charges

2. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the respondents 2 to 5, on account of prior enmity had attacked him and his brothers, who were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4; with hands, wooden logs and bricks; that P.W.1 to P.W.4 sustained injuries on their legs and hands and that they were humiliated on account of their caste.

3. On a complaint given by the appellant dated 17.04.2016, FIR was registered in Crime No.72/2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(3) of SC/ST Amendment Act of 2015, which was

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 marked as Ex.P10. The investigation was conducted by P.W.11 who filed a final report for the aforesaid charges. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions against accused 1 to 4 /respondent 2 to 5.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, marked Exs.P1 to P22 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. The defence had not examined any witness, but they marked Ex.D1 to D4.

5. The trial Court found that none of the witnesses had any external injuries; that the witnesses, for the reasons best known, had absconded from the hospital and that their evidence was not corroborated by the medical evidence; that the injuries on the respondents were not explained by the prosecution and hence found that the respondents 2 to 5 were not guilty of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, would submit that the appellant and the other witnesses have cogently deposed about the assault committed on them in the complaint and in their depositions in Court; that their evidence had not been discredited in any manner in the cross examination and that merely because the respondent had filed an earlier complaint which was ultimately referred as mistake of fact, their evidence cannot be brushed aside.

CRL A No. 206 of 2022

7. The State has not filed any appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, reiterates the submissions made by the defacto complainant and would support the case of the prosecution.

8. Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, would submit that the judgment of acquittal is a reasoned one; that the view of the trial Court is plausible and that this Court, in an appeal against acquittal, would not interfere with the judgment, unless the findings are found to be perverse. He would further submit that there is no perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court and hence, the appeal has to be dismissed.

9. As stated above, P.Ws.1 to 4 , according to the prosecution were attacked by the respondents. P.W.5 turned hostile. P.W.6 is the witness to the observation mahazar. P.W.7 is the Tahsildar who issued the community certificate. P.W.8 is the doctor who had treated the appellant and P.Ws. 2 to 4. P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector who registered the FIR. P.W.10 is the Inspector, who conducted investigation and assisted P.W.11, Investigating Officer.

10. It is the case of the appellant and the other injured witnesses that on account of a land dispute, the respondents attacked them with wooden logs, knives and bricks. They immediately went to the hospital for treatment. The

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 wound certificates were marked as Exs.P8 and P9. It is seen that they had informed the doctor that they were assaulted by 20 persons using wooden logs and knives.

11. Firstly, this is contrary to the prosecution case. Secondly no external injuries were found on any of the witnesses, except for P.W3 and P.W.4, on whom, there were abrasions of size 1.5 cm x 2 mm. The fact that there was a property dispute is not disputed by the parties. It is also not in dispute that the respondents also lodged a complaint and the said FIR was marked as Ex.D4. Though there is no evidence to show as to what happened pursuant to the investigation in Ex.D4, the learned senior counsel for the respondent would fairly state that the said complaint was closed and referred as “mistake of fact”.

12. Be that as it may, the respondents had marked Exs.D1 and D2, which are the wound certificates issued for A1 and A2 respectively. It is stated A1 had sustained (1) acute laceration wound 4x1x1 cm frontal regional extending to right parietal (2)multiple abrasions of size, each 4cm x 0.1 mm on left side forearm and (3)multiple abrasion of size 2 cm x 0.1mm over left side knee. A2 had sustained (1) contusion 3 x2 cm x 1 cm right side frontal region (2) Abrasion 5 cm x 0.3 mm left side forearm.

13. These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution or by the

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 witnesses. The trial Court also found that there was several contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 as regards the manner of occurrence and the weapons said to have been used by the accused. Further, the earlier version before the doctor that 20 persons attacked them is contrary to their deposition. Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial Court was right in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and acquitting the respondents.

14. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the trial court, unless it is shown to be perverse. This Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court and the judgment rendered is plausible and no interference by this Court is called for. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court is confirmed. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge of Vellore District at Vellore.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi Sub Division, Vaniyambadi.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai

CRL A No. 206 of 2022 SUNDER MOHAN, J. vsi CRL A No. 206 of 2022 09-10-2026