Madras High Court
Dinesh @ Batcha vs State Represented By on 4 August, 2021
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.451 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.7384 of 2021
Dinesh @ Batcha .. Petitioner / Appellant / Accused
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police
Bhuvanagiri Police Station
(Cr.No.140 of 2015)
... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and set aside
the conviction Judgments made in Crl.A.No.70 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019
by the Hon'ble II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram
and confirming the order in C.C.NO.73 of 2016 dated 17.10.2018 passed
by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in Crl.A.No.70 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019 passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram, confirming the
order of conviction passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Parangipettai, in C.C.No.73 of 2016 dated 17.10.2018.
2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner in
Crime No.140 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),
323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. After completing the investigation, laid charge
sheet before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Parangipettai for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 324 and
506(ii) IPC and the learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in
C.C.No.73 of 2016 and after completing the formalities, the trial Court
convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
506(ii) IPC and also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC
and further sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section 294(b) and ordered the sentences to
run consecutively. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and
sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Principal District
and Session Judge, Cuddalore and the same was taken on file in
C.A.No.70 of 2019 and made over the case to the learned II Additional
District Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, after hearing the arguments and considering the materials,
confirmed the conviction and sentence however, modified the sentences
to run concurrently instead of consecutively. Challenging the said
Judgment of dismissal of appeal dated 17.07.2019, the present revision
has been filed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has not involved in any offences as alleged by the prosecution.
Even assuming, the alleged weapon was not recovered and the Doctor
has stated that the injury is simple in nature and thereby, Section 506 (ii)
IPC would not attract whereas, the learned Magistrate without
considering the same convicted the petitioner for all the three charges
and the appellate Court only modified the mode of sentence and failed to
appreciate the evidence. Thereby, there are perversity in appreciation of
evidence and therefore, the revision may be allowed and the Judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are liable to be set
aside. He would further submit that in case, if the Court is not convinced,
atleast the sentence may be reduced since, the injury is simple in nature.
4. The learned Government (Crl. Side) would submit that P.W.1 is
the injured witness and P.W.2 is an eyewitness and they have
categorically stated about the incident and the doctor one who examined
the injured, has also stated that the victim sustained injury on the left side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
of the shoulder and therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond
all reasonable doubt. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the
evidence and convicted and sentenced as stated above. Therefore, there is
no merit in the revision petition and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sole accused in the case in Crime
No.140 of 2015. The Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) and in
order to substantiate the charges before the Magistrate, the prosecution
examined 6 witnesses and marked 7 documents. Out of the 6 witnesses,
the injured witness was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the eyewitness,
P.W.5 is the Doctor one who gave treatment to P.W.1 and issued the
wound certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
7. Perusal of materials shows that P.W.1, the injured has clearly
narrated the incident and P.W.2, the eyewitness has also corroborated
with the evidence of P.W.1. The doctor one who gave treatment to P.W.1
was examined as P.W.5 and she has deposed that she gave treatment to
P.W.1 and also stated about the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1. In
order to prove the injury sustained by P.W.1, the copy of Accident
Register is marked as Ex.P.3. Therefore, a reading of the evidence of
P.Ws.1,2,5 and Ex.P.3 show that the Courts below have rightly
appreciated that the petitioner / the sole accused is the one who caused
the injuries to P.W.1
8. The scope of the revision is very limited. This Court cannot sit in
the arm chair of the appellate Court and cannot appreciate or re-assess
the evidence and substitute its views on findings of facts. As a revision
Court, this Court has to see as to whether there is any perversity in the
appreciation of evidence in the Judgments passed by the Courts below.
9. On a reading of the Judgments of the Courts below, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
finds no perversity in the appreciation of evidence and there is no merit
in the revision. The revision is liable to be dismissed and there is no
arguable ground to admit the revision.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.08.2021
ksa-2
To
1. II Additional District Sessions Court,
Chidambaram
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Parangipettai.
3. The The Inspector of Police
Bhuvanagiri Police Station
4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.
5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.RC.No.451 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ksa-2
Criminal Revision Case No.451 of 2021
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
