M. Dhandapani v. R. Muthu Naliappan & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C. K. Thakker
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2008-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Dhandapani

Respondents

R. Muthu Naliappan & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Raghunath
• S.R. Setia

Counsels for Respondents

• K.K. Mani
• C.K.R. Lenin Sekar
• Mayur R. Shah
• S. Srinivasan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant, M. Dhandapani, a shopkeeper, was allegedly assaulted by police officers who confronted him for keeping his shop open after the fixed closing time. The incident occurred on 18 February 1997 at about 9.45 p.m. in Erode District, recorded in CC No. 85/2000 before the learned Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi. The complainant alleged that the first respondent questioned him about the late opening, and that the remaining accused constables then detained him and assaulted him in a jeep. The trial Court, relying on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, held that the accusations were without substance and that there was no material to prove the alleged offence. The appellant challenged the order under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the trial court misread the evidence and that the High Court erred in summarily endorsing the trial court’s conclusions. The High Court dismissed the appeal after analyzing contradictions in the witnesses’ statements and finding the complainant’s version lacking credibility and cogency. The Supreme Court, after scanning the record and hearing the counsel, found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s conclusions. It observed that the reasons indicating the complainant’s lack of credibility sufficed to sustain the order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the impugned judgments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 378(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the High Court erred in relying on statements and inferences drawn from the witnesses’ testimony; they argue the trial court correctly found the allegations unsupported in law and fact, and that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of offense beyond reasonable doubt; they urge the appellate court to reappraise the credibility of the complainant's version and to examine the documentary and testimonial evidence. They maintain that Section 378(4) is properly invoked to challenge the dismissal order and that interference is warranted to rectify any misapplication of the evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence was sound and that the High Court’s reasons for dismissing the appeal were well founded, particularly regarding inconsistencies and lack of cogency in the complainant’s account. They contend that there is no material to show that the accused assaulted the complainant, and accordingly no interference with the impugned judgments is warranted.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_r_ >--- [2008] 15 S.C.R. 40 A # M. DHANDAPANI II. R. MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos.453-54 of 2003) B ## OCTOBER 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] _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. _1_ _).._ F Dismissing the appeal, the Court G 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] 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] •, )- H 40 M. DHANDAPANI _v._ R. MUTHU NALIAPPAN & ORS. 41 ~; c 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 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. 't ~ 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 ] SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. 42 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. 8 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. 4. That being the position, we find no merit in these C appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.