Vinoth vs State Represented By

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15553 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Vinoth vs State Represented By on 20 September, 2022
                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     Dated: 20.09.2022

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016

                Vinoth,                                                  ... Petitioner/Accused

                                                          /versus/

                State Represented by,
                Inspector of Police,
                Thittakudy Police Station,
                Crime No.167 of 2014                                     ... Respondent/Complainant


                Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
                Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Learned on the
                file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam,
                confirming the order passed by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Viruthachalam
                in S.C.No.10 of 2015.


                                        For Petitioner           : No appearance

                                        For Respondent       : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,
                                                               Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
                                                         ORDER

Page No.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding the petitioner/accused guilty of offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 355, 326, 506(ii) of I.P.C.

2. The Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the judgment of the Courts below, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed. In spite of several adjournments, there is no representation for the petitioner or for some reason, he has sought for adjournments. Today, when the case listed, there is no representation for the petitioner.

3. On perusing the records, this Court finds that the judgment of the Court below is challenged on the ground that recovery of material objects under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act not proved and the prosecution has failed to prove the delay in registering the F.I.R and forwarding a copy of the same to the Magistrate. The conviction is laid based on uncorroborated evidence. There is no independent witness for the alleged incident. P.W.7 (Dinesh Kumar), who is the Page No.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 brother of P.W.1 (Rajesh kumar) and P.W.2 (Siva Kumar) who alleged to have sustained injury.

4. On going through the records, this Court finds that, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 were taking dinner at Veeran Hotel, Vathishtapuram, on 06.08.2014, at 11.30 hours, a customer by name Pattukottaiyan @ Murugan came to the hotel and ordered food to take away, since hotelier attended new customer, the accused persons abused him for giving priority to the new customer. This was objected by one Rajesh kumar who was present in the hotel at that time. After Rajesh Kumar and his friend Siva Kumar left the hotel, the accused persons followed him and attacked Rajesh kumar with Wooden log over the right knee. The other accused Murugan attacked Siva Kumar with stone over the neck. Rajesh Kumar and Siva Kumar was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. This incident was witnessed by P.W.7 and he has corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Doctor, who has examined the injury sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.2 has certified that P.W.1 has sustained partial avulsion of left ear and disfigurement over the face which is grievous in nature. The weapon used to attack the victims P.W.1 and P.W.2 was Page No.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 recovered which is marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. This was recovered based on the confession given by the accused persons. Though, P.W.4 & P.W.5 were treated as hostile witnesses, the other witnesses namely P.W.9, who witnessed the arrest of the accused persons and recovery of material objects based on the confession statement of the accused has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Courts below has found the accused persons guilty and convicted them as below for the offences stated:-

Accused Offences under Conviction and Sentence imposed by the trial Court Section A1 to A3 294 (b) of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.500/-, each, in default, three weeks S.I.
341 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.250/- each, in default one week S.I. 506(i) of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default one month S.I. A1 355 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default one month S.I. A2 & A3 324 of I.P.C To pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, each in default, six month R.I. A1 326 of I.P.C To undergo three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default three months R.I.

The appellant (A1) was not found guilty for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C and acquitted for the said charge.

5. The Criminal Appeal (C.A.No.9 of 2016) filed by the appellant Page No.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.10 of 2015 was dismissed. Confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

6. As discussed above, this Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The grounds stated are found to be sustainable since the Courts below have rightly considered the evidence of the injured witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W.2, which was witnessed by P.W.7 and corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8, the Doctor, who has treated the injured victims. Since the material objects were recovered based on the confession statement given by the accused persons which is fully admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as a fact leading to discovery of evidence. This Court finds no merit in the revision petition.

7. For the above said reasons, this Court holds no error in the well considered judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Bail Bond stands cancelled. The accused shall be secured and committed to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of Page No.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 imprisonment already undergo shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C 20.09.2022 Index : Yes/No.

                Internet     : Yes/No.
                bsm
                To,

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam,

2. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Viruthachalam

3. The Inspector of Police, Thittakudy Police Station, Virudhachalam.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

bsm Crl.R.C.No.1245 of 2016 20.09.2022 Page No.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis