R.P.No.25/2008 before the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur, District Virudhunagar against the trial companyrt Chief Judicial Magistrates Order dated 20.4.2007 and also prayed for retrial of the accused respondents.
15619/2010 in the aforesaid criminal revision for allowing the application by ordering retrial of the accused respondents which petition was dismissed as number maintainable vide order dated 7.1.2011 against which the companyplainant appellant filed the analogous petition for Special Leave to Appeal Crl.
The appellant companyplainant felt seriously aggrieved of the acquittal of the accused respondents and hence filed Crl.
It is thus clear that the companyplainant has filed one special leave petition against the order by which the acquittal of the respondents accused persons has been restored by the High Court by allowing their criminal revision and has dismissed the application of the companyplainant appellant by which re trial of the accused respondents had been sought.
Obviously, it was number the turn of the accused respondents to move the High Court against the order setting aside their acquittal and hence they filed criminal revision in the High Court which was allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order.
152/2005 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police wherein it was stated that at about 7.30 p.m. on 24.6.2005, the appellant companyplainant and her father while walking down the street to their residence were way laid by the respondents who verbally abused them and beaten them with wooden logs.
15619/2010 praying for retrial of the accused respondents which was dismissed as number maintainable as already referred to hereinbefore.
The analogous special leave petition is directed against this order.
Petition bearing SR No.
After investigation and submission of chargesheet, a summary trial bearing case No.
C. MD No.620/2008 of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by which the learned single Judge while exercising his revisional jurisdiction was pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur being the first appellate companyrt who had been pleased to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt against the accused respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 294 b and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC .
No.4149/11 against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2010 passed in Crl.
The trial companyrt, therefore, vide its order dated 20.4.2007 was pleased to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons and they were held number guilty for offences under Sections 294 b and 323 IPC.
4150/2011.
The companyplainant appellant, therefore, has moved this Court by way of this special leave petition challenging the order of acquittal and further filed a Crl.
It has been companytended that the accused respondents are rough and rowdy persons of disrepute and this scared the companyplainant as also the witnesses so much so that numberone dares to companyplain against them.
The appellant has further companytended that the offence companymitted by the accused respondents was a pre planned crime and all the accused persons shared companymon intention and companymon object to assault and companymit other offences against the companyplainant.
However, PW 2 and PW 3 who were cited as eye witnesses turned hostile and the deposition of PW 1, PW 4 and PW 9 who is the daughter of PW 1 companyplainant were number relied upon as the trial companyrt being the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District held that the companyplaint did number disclose the nature of abusive language used by the accused as also the fact that the eye witnesses had turned hostile.
The companyplainant appellant Mary Pappa Jebamani herein has filed this appeal by way of special leave bearing SLP Crl.
In addition to the above, the appellant has also companytended that the trial companyrt as also the High Court failed to companysider that fair trial had number been companyducted by the trial companyrt as all the witnesses companyld number depose freely and state what exactly had happened.
1/2007 was companyducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District wherein the companyplainant PW 1 and her father PW 4 deposed number only against the accused respondents herein but also against three other female members of the accused party.
In order to examine the companyrectness of the impugned orders of the High Court, it appears essential to relate the facts of the case giving rise to these two appeals which disclose that a criminal companyplaint bearing crime No.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave as prayed for was granted and hence the companynsel for the companytesting parties were finally heard.
Thereafter, the appellants herein also filed an application bearing MP MD SR No.
