Madras High Court
Sasikala vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By on 6 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.437 of 2019
Sasikala ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by
Sub Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur,
Crime No.254 of 2013. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated
12.02.2019 made in C.A.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District
Sessions Court, Perambalur as confirming the judgment dated 09.03.2018
made in C.C.No.218 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila
Court, Perambalur and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Padmanaban
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment
dated 12.02.2019 passed in C.A.No.1 of 2018 by the learned Principal
District Sessions Judge, Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
2.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.254 of 2013
against the petitioner and another, who were arrayed as A1 and A2 for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 323 and 325 IPC. On completion of
the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, and the same was taken on file in
C.C.No.164 of 2013 and subsequently, transferred to Additional Mahila
Court, Perambalur and re-numbered as C.C.No.218 of 2013. After trial, the
learned Magistrate found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC
and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of two weeks. The petitioner/A2 herein was found guilty for the
offence under Section 325 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/A2 herein preferred an
appeal in C.A.No.1 of 2018 before the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Perambalur. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Challenging
the same, the petitioner/A2 herein is before this Court by way of Criminal
Revision Case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
previous enmity between the parties on account of a property dispute. There
was two days delay in filing the complaint and the same was not properly
explained by the prosecution. He would further submit that no offence was
made out against the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and there is material
contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and none of the
independent witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Though
Doctor/P.W.7 has deposed that based on the X-Ray report, he found that
there was a fracture and injury sustained by one of the victim/P.W.2 was
grave in nature. In order to establish the same, the prosecution has not
marked the X-Ray report. In a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court it is stated that X-Ray has to be marked as exhibit, if
not marked the offence under Section 325 is not made out. However, the
trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the
material evidence and simply convicted and sentenced the petitioner only on
the ground of sympathy and hence, he prays to set aside the order of both
the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent
would submit that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side
of the prosecution as many as 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8.
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are injured witnesses and they have clearly spoken about
the injuries sustained by them. P.W.1 has clearly stated that the petitioner
herein had assaulted him and his mother and also twisted the hand of his
mother/P.W.2 and she was admitted in the hospital and taken treatment.
P.W.2 also has clearly spoken about the specific overtact against the
petitioner herein. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are corroborated with the
evidence of P.W.7/Doctor and medical evidence. The evidence of
P.W.7/Doctor, Ex.P4/Copy of the Accident Register clearly shows that P.W.2
sustained grievous injury and hence, the prosecution has established its case
that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 325 IPC.
Therefore, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted
and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 IPC, which
was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in C.A.No.1 of 2018. Hence,
there is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
6.It is seen from the records that P.W.1 in his evidence has clearly
deposed that the petitioner herein has assaulted and twisted the hand of his
mother/P.W.2 and she was admitted in the hospital and taken treatment.
P.W.7/Doctor, one who examined P.W.2 has clearly deposed that while
examining P.W.2, he found that P.W.2 sustained fracture, which was
grievous in nature and the same was mentioned in the Accident
Registered/Ex.P4. Therefore, on a combined reading of the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 and Ex.P4, both the Courts below found that the petitioner
has committed the charged offence as alleged by the prosecution.
7.Though the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
that the offence under Section 325 was not made out and the prosecution
has failed to prove that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 is grievous in nature.
In order to prove the same X-Ray was not marked. Therefore, the injuries
sustained by P.W.2 was not proved by the prosecution and hence, the benefit
of doubt should be extended to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
8.It is settled proposition of law that in injured cases, the evidence of
injured witness has to be considered and no corroboration is necessary,
unless there is an independent eye witness. In the present case, in order to
prove the injuries sustained by P.W.2, who was examined as one of the
witnesses has clearly stated that there was a specific overt act against the
petitioner. P.W.7/Doctor has clearly stated that based on the X-Ray report he
found that P.W.2 sustained fracture in her hand. Since X-Ray has not been
marked, the evidence of the Doctor cannot be ignored totally. The medical
evidence corroborated the evidence of injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2.
9.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had already appreciated the entire evidence and also given
the findings, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot
sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and reappreciate the evidences.
Therefore, this Court has to see only as to whether there is any perversity in
appreciation of evidence in the judgment of the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
10.On a combined reading of the entire materials and judgments of
both the Courts below, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in
the judgments of both the Courts below and the revision is liable to be
dismissed. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, once the prosecution
has proved the charges under Section 325 IPC, sentence can be imposed
upto seven years. In the present case, the trial Court had already shown
leniency to the petitioner and convicted and sentenced her for a period of
one year. The petitioner without considering the age of P.W.2, who was aged
about 60 years, twisted her hand and caused injury, which was grievous in
nature and hence, there is no mitigating circumstances to reduce the
sentence and there is no merit in the Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly,
the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
06.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
To
1.The Principal District Sessions Judge,
Perambalur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,
Perambalur.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Perambalur Police Station,
Perambalur.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.437 of 2019
06.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
