Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2018
G.Shameer
...Petitioner
Versus
State by
The Inspector of Police,
B-13, Pothanur Police,
Pothanur, Coimbatore District,
(Cr.No.971 of 2011) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 rw 401
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in so far relates to
order passed in C.A.No.204 of 2015 dated on 28.06.2017 on the file of
learend IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore district whereby modify the conviction and sentence dated
18.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate
VII, Coimbatore, Coimbatore district from six months imprisonment to
three months imprisonment and set aside the same.
1/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji
Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
This revision arises against the judgment of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore district passed in C.A.No.204 of 2015 dated on 28.06.2017. s
2.The prosecution case is that the petitioner abused P.W.1 and P.W.2 using unparliamentary language in public place and further, the accused has pushed P.W.1 down thereby causing grievous hurt and had beaten P.W.2 with a wooden stick on her cheek and caused her simple injury and hence, the petitioner was guilty under Sections 75(i) of TNCP Act and Sections 324 & 325 of IPC.
3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and M.O.1. The petitioner has not examined any witnesses and not marked any exhibits on his side.
4. The trial Court found that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the evidence of (P.W.6) Doctor to establish the P.W.1 2/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018 sustained injuries. The Trial Court therefore convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The Appellate Court found that the prosecution has not established that the nature of injuries found on P.W.1 is grievous in nature as they had not produced X-ray and supporting documents to establish the same. Further, the Appellate Court found that the prosecution had established that the victim suffered injuries due to the act of the petitioner and covicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a sentence of three months SI.
5.Heard, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
6.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not proved the nature of the injuries and the evidence of the victim and the other witnesses, do not inspire confidence. Hence, the coviction by the Courts below, are liable to be setaside.
7.Mr.S.Balaji, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), submitted that the scope of revision is limited and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgement of the Courts 3/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018 below.
8.I find that the Courts below have on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, believed their version. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Courts below in this regard. The Appellate Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 325 IPC since the relevant medical record namely the X-ray was not produced. The finding of the Appellate Court holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC cannot be faulted.
9.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly 45 days. Further, he would submit that the occurrence had taken place 12 years ago and the victim and the petitioner are neighbours. Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) confirmed the fact that the petitioner had already suffered 45 days imprisonment.
10.Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that occurrence had taken place 12 years ago, and that the 4/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018 petitioner has been in custody for nearly 45 days, this Court is of the view that the sentence alone can be modified.
11.Hence, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to period undergone and direct the petitioner to pay compensation to the victim (P.W.1) Ibrahim. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period undergone. The petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the victim, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in default to suffer one month S.I.
12.With the above modifications, this Criminal revision is disposed of.
22.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order vsn To 5/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
2.The Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, Coimbatore.
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vsn Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2018 6/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018 22.09.2022 7/ 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis