M. DHANDAPANI versus R. MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. on 21 October 2008

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 40

A

M. DHANDAPANI

II. R. MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.453-54 of 2003)

OCTOBER 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

B

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.378(4):

c

Assault - Police allegedly assaulted a shopkeeper for -opening the shop after the time fixed for closing Complaint - Evidence of witness - Reliability - Trial Court, on the basis of evidence of witnesses, held that accusations were without D [Bf!Y ][substance ][-][ Affirmed ][by ][High Court ][-][ Correctness ][of ][-]Held: Correct, as complainant version lacks credibility/ cogency.

Appellant, a shopkeeper, was allegedly assaulted by respondent, Police Officers, as he had opened the shop E after the time fixed for its closing. Trial Court did not find evidence of witnesses sufficient to establish accusations. On appeal, High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

F

HELD: 1.1. The trial Court, with reference to the evidence of witnesses, came to hold that the accusati~ns were without substance and there was no material to show the alleged commission of offence. [Para 2] [41-G]

G

1.2. The High Court had indicated several reasons as to why the complainant version lacks credibility or cogency. Hence, no interference with the impugned order is called for. [Para 3] [42-B]

•,

)..

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A Nos. 453-454 of 2003.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.3.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.A. No. 348 of 2002 and Crl.O.P. No. 5043,of 2002.

8. Raghunath and S.R. Setia for the Appellant.

K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar, Mayur R. Shah and S. Srinivasan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D~. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal D under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The appeal was filed questioning the order dated 20.12.2001 made in CC No. 85/2000 on the file of Learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, Erode District. The allegations were to the effect that on 18.2.1997 at E about 9.45 P.M. accused persons took exception to the fact that the complainant had kept his shop open after the time fixed for closing the shop. The complainant was questioned by respondent No. 1 as to why he had kept the shop open. The complainant replied that the shop was kept open for the F cleaning the utensils. This does not appear to have satisfied respondent No. 1 who directed the other two accused persons . who were constables to put the accused in the jeep and assaulted him. The trial court with reference to the evidence of witnesses came to hold that the accusations were without G. substance and there was no material to show the alleged commission of offence. Since the order was passed in a complaint case, appeal was preferred by grant of leave. The High Court referred to the various conclusions of the trial court and hold that the accusations have not been established. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High [H ]

A Court's conclusions are contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has concluded about the contradictions based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is pointed out that the conclusions are· at variance with the evidence on records.

3. We have perused the .records and after hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are satisfied that no interference is called for. The High Court has indicated several reasons as to why the complainant version lacks credibility or cogency.

8

4. That being the position, we find no merit in these C appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

S.K.S.