Madras High Court
Marimuthu vs State Rep. By on 5 August, 2021
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.314 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2895 of 2021
Marimuthu : Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.102/2012) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the
judgment passed in C.A.No.25/2013, dated 24.02.2015 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the order of
conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.103/2012, dated 12.09.2013 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur and set aside the same and
acquit the petitioner/appellant/accused from the charges leveled against him.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Counsel for Government of
Tamil Nadu (Crl.side)
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to check the
correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District
Judge, Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.25/2013, dated 24.02.2015, where in the
judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur in
C.C.No.103/2012, dated 12.09.2013 was confirmed.
2. The accused, in C.C.No.103 of 2012, on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, is the revision petitioner herein. Before
the trial Court, he stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324
and 506(ii) of IPC. He denied the same and opted for trial. Therefore, he
was put on trial on the charges.
3. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Judge found the
accused guilty for the offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. He
has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
one year under Section 324 of IPC, further convicted under Section 506(ii)
of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal in C.A.No.25/2013 before the Additional District Court,
Ramanathapuram. The learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram
by judgment, dated 24.02.2015 affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial
Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is before this
Court with the present Criminal Revision Case.
5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 07.07.2012 around 8.30 p.m., in Ariyanathapuram Village,
the deceased Palani, who was the defacto complainant in this case, while
standing near to his house, the revision petitioner came there and abused
him with filthy language, further, by using Velstick (fj;jpfk;G) he cut the
deceased Palani in the left forearm and resultantly, the deceased Palani
sustained simple injury. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.2 and
P.W.3, who are the wife and daughter of the deceased Palani, brought the
deceased Palani to the Government Hospital, Kadaladi for giving treatment.
(ii) P.W.4-Dr.Furnithsiga, attached with Government Hospital,
Kadaladi, on 08.07.2012 at around 12.00 hours, while she was on duty,
treated the deceased Palani and found the following injuries:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
“A lacerated wound 4 x 1 x cm over at shoulder.
Able to more an four limbs, GCS 15/15. No other injuries.”
6. After giving treatment, she issued a wound certificate stating
that the injury sustained by the Palani is simple in nature. In the meanwhile,
upon receipt of the complaint given by the deceased Palani, P.W.5- the then
Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.
102/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and
506(ii) of IPC. He visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an
Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch under Ex.P1 and Ex.P5
respectively. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. In
the course of investigation, he collected the wound certificate from P.W.4
and filed a final report alleging that the revision petitioner is liable to be
convicted under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.
7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the
charges against the accused under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.
The accused denied the same as false and opted for trial. Hence, in order to
prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 5 witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the same as false.
However, he did not chose to examine any witness or mark any document
on his side.
9. Having considered all the above materials and after hearing the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.
Further, the sentence awarded by the trial Court was confirmed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.25/2013.
10. I have heard Mr.R.Venkateswaran, learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government
Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the
records carefully.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would contend that the alleged occurrence is nothing but family quarrel
happened in the family of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is
the son-in-law of the injured Palani. Further, P.W.1-Indira is his mother-in-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
law and P.W.2-Thilagavathi is his wife. Now, the dispute arose between the
accused and the injured has been compromised and for which, a joint
compromise memo, dated 26.03.2021 has also been filed before this Court.
According to him, after the compromise made between the injured and the
accused, confirming the sentence awarded by the Court below is not
required.
12. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent would submit that since the revision petitioner was convicted
under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in view of the fact that the said
offences are classified as non-compoundable and therefore, the law does not
permit this Court to record the compromise. According to him, interference
of this Court in the findings arrived at by the Courts below does not require.
13. By considering the said submissions with relevant records, it
seems that after filing the revision petition, both P.W.2 and the revision
petitioner filed a joint compromise memo stating that due to the compromise
already entered between them, the revision petitioner need not be sentenced
further more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
14. In this occasion, on going through the judgment rendered by
the Courts below it seems that the revision petitioner was convicted under
Sections 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. Since both the offences narrated above are
classified under Section 320 Cr.P.C., as non-compoundable, hence, I am of
the opinion that the joint compromise memo filed by either party is no way
helpful to the revision petitioner for deciding the issue in his favour. More
over, on going through the history of the case, it is not in dispute that during
the time of occurrence, the revision petitioner had attacked one Palani, now
he is no more. Therefore, even assuming that the alleged offences
committed by the revision petitioner are compoundable in nature, only the
injured Palani is the competent person for filing the petition to compound
the offence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Joint Compromise
Memo filed by the petitioner along with P.W.2 is not maintainable.
15. Now, on perusal of evidence, it seems that both P.Ws.1 & 2
have categorically stated that during the time of occurrence, the revision
petitioner came to their house and with the aid of one Velstick cut the
deceased Palani on his left shoulder. Further, the doctor, who treated the
deceased Palani, has also gave evidence in support of the evidence given by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
P.W.1. Therefore, in respect of the attack made by the revision petitioner,
the evidence put-forth by the prosecution witnesses are found cogent and
inspire the confidence of this Court. In otherwise, on going through the
entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 they did not say anything about the
criminal intimidation made by the revision petitioner. Therefore, in the
absence of clear evidence in respect of criminal intimidation convicting the
revision petitioner under Section 506(ii) of IPC is nothing but cross
injustice and also the the same is manifest error. Hence, the sentence
awarded by the trial Court under Section 506(ii) of IPC is set aside.
16. In other words, I am of the opinion that the evidence given by
the prosecution witnesses in respect of the offence under Section 324 of
IPC, is found clear for convicting the revision petitioner.
17. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner would contend that after the incident, both the revision petitioner
and his wife-P.W.2 joined together and leads a happy matrimonial life.
Further, the death of the injured Palani is not due to the attack made by the
revision petitioner. In the said circumstances, if the sentence awarded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
the trial Court is further confirmed, the same will create a confusion in
P.W.2's matrimonial life. In this regard, he prays to give some leniency in
awarding the sentence.
18. Now, on considering the said submission with relevant
records in respect of the relationship between the petitioner and P.W.2, the
submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner has conceded by the Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing
for the respondent and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the opinion that if the revision petitioner is sentenced further, it would
cause much prejudice in P.W.2's life. Therefore, considering the nature of
offence committed by the revision petitioner, I am of the opinion that
sentencing the revision petitioner for a period of two weeks Rigorous
Imprisonment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed,
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 506(ii)
of IPC is set aside. In respect of the offence under Section 324 of IPC, the
sentence awarded by the Courts below is reduced to two weeks. The period
of imprisonment already undergone by the revision petitioner shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Bail bond, if any, executed by the
revision petitioner shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Additional District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Judicial Magistrate,
Mudukulathur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.314 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.314 of 2017
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
