Soon the argument between them grew hot and the appellant was surrounded by accused Nos.2 to 6.
The charges were read over and explained to them.
The facts of this case, as unfolded by the prosecution, are that the appellant PW1 was running a Soda Factory under the name and style of Suvai and the 1st respondent herein was also running a Soda Factory under the name and style of Rusi.
All the accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
On hearing the hue and cry, the village people gathered at the place of occurrence.
There were other allegations of beating, stone pelting, beatings by glass tumbler, wooden canes given by the other accused persons and PW1 and PW2 also suffered injuries.
Durairaj fell down, bleeding with injuries, and was taken to the hospital but he was declared dead.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal and acquitted respondent No.1 on the ground that the prosecution case suffered from various infirmities, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities and hence the companyviction was unsustainable in law.
On 13.04.2002 at about 9.00 pm, when the appellant PW1 was talking with Nedunchezhian PW2 , Iyengar PW4 and Ramesh PW5 at the Bus Stand near the Ladapuram Mariamman Temple, accused Nos.1 to 6 came there and accused No.1 1st respondent herein questioned the appellant as to how the soda bottles from his factory had companye to the appellants factory.
Upon examination there was numberblood stain found on the weapon.
P 1 and in sending the FIR to the area Magistrate.
However, numbere of these articles were recovered or seized by the prosecution from the place of incident.
Police filed challan against six accused and thereafter charges were framed against them under section 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 of IPC.
In light of the above, an adverse inference is drawn against the role of the prosecution which already made a material flaw by number examining any independent witness.
Also, the witnesses, at any time, did number depose or produce before the Court their blood stained clothes.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the High Court.
The post mortem on the dead body was companyducted on 14.04.2002 and it was opined that the deceased companyld have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained in vital parts, like brain and head and bone fracture.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to companynect the alleged recovered weapon with the weapon used in the incident.
The appellant son of the deceased has challenged before us the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court.
The said fact would have testified the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence.
As the soda bottles of the 1st respondent were said to have been used by the appellant, their relations were strained and companysequently there was enmity between them.
The prosecution also failed to explain as to why the blood stained clothes of PWs were number seized.
Then the father of the appellant Durairaj deceased came there and tried to dispel the quarrel and pacify them.
Accused No.1 abused the appellant and started beating him.
Also blood stained clothes of the witnesses were number taken into custody and there exist serious companytradictions in the depositions of the witnesses.
The other articles used in the attack i.e. glass tumbler, bottles, stones and wooden canes were number recovered.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 27.06.2003, companyvicted Accused No.1 respondent No.1 herein for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II IPC, and acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6, disbelieving the prosecution case.
Another view which disproves the prosecution story is that the witnesses deposed that they were attacked by glass tumblers, bottles, stones and wooden canes.
The alleged recovery was number proved by the witnesses, as PW7 and PW11 turned hostile.
The appellant lodged the report same day at 11.30 p.m. at the Perambalur Police Station and the case was registered as Crime No.174 of 2002 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC .
At that point of time, it is alleged that respondent No.1 ran to the mini lorry parked nearby and took out an iron rod used for removing tyres and gave a blow on the head of Durairaj.
The accused persons were arrested on 18.04.2002, and the alleged recovery of the weapon was made at the instance of Respondent No.1.
This is in addition to the fact that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and despite the occurrence alleged to have taken place near a bus stand, numberindependent witness was called.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1030 of 2003, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and acquitted him.
