Madras High Court
M. Mannar vs State Rep.By on 18 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
M. Mannar .. Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Vellore South L & O Police Station,
Vellore District.
Crime No.787/2012. .. Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in
Crl.A.No.59 of 2014 dated 16.06.2015 on the file of the Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Vellore confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.48 of
2013 dated 05.07.2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mr. R. Vinoth Raja,
Government Advocate
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
ORDER
The matter is heard through "Video Conference".
2. The convicted first accused is the revision petitioner herein.
3. The case of the petitioner is that
3(a) on 24.12.2012 at about 3.45 pm, the first accused/Mannar had
written filthy words in a board hanging in front of his residence by defaming
the reputation of P.W.2/Latha and the same was questioned by the defacto
complainant, enraged over the same, the appellant along with one Padma
had scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language, in the course of
same transaction, the appellant had beaten the defacto complainant on his
head with wooden log and poured acid on the left side of the cheek and
caused grievous injury and that one another accused Padma had assaulted
the defacto complainant with her hands and legs and caused simple injury to
him and also both the appellant and one another accused had threatened the
defacto complainant with dire consequence to his breathe and thereby, the
appellant and one another accused had committed offences punishable under
Section 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
3(b) The respondent-police filed a final report in Crime No.787/2012,
before the Vellore South L & O Police station, Vellore, alleging that appellant
was charged for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 506(ii)
and 326 of IPC and the appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence
under Section 326 of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I., for
one and half years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo
S.I., for three months. Out of total fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is
ordered to be paid to victim as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Further, the appellant is found not guilty for the offences under Section
294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and thereby, acquitted.
4. During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.10 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P12 have been marked and the material objects
which are marked as MOs.1 to 4. On the side of the appellant no oral or
documentary evidence was placed before the trial Court. After hearing both
sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate found the appellant guilty for the
offence under Section 326 of IPC and convicted as aforesaid, apart from
acquitting for the offences under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
5. The learned Magistrate has held that charge under Section
294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC was not made out. Accordingly, acquitted
the first accused and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 323
of IPC and acquitted the second accused in entirety. Appeal filed by the
appellant in Crl.A.No.59/2014, is dismissed and hence the revision.
6. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would contend that in the absence of any chemical report as to the chemical
nature of the alleged content in MO.3, the trial Court ought not to have
convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The seizure mahazar was not proved in
the manner known to law and due to the previous enmity, the false case has
been foisted against A1. Further, on the point of quantum of punishment,
the learned counsel also submitted that the revision petitioner is 71 years old
and he is suffering from cancer and taking treatment.
7. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the respondent
made a submission in support of the order passed by the Courts below.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
8. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records,
the only charge against the revision petitioner is under Section 326 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 is
that in front of the house of the first accused, he has written filthy words in
front of his house whereby, some defamatory words touching the reputation
of P.W.2/Latha, (wife of P.W.1), which has led to enraged over the said
incident, the alleged incidence said to have occurred.
9. Records reveals that the investigation has not seized the alleged
board said to be containing filthy words. Neither the P.W.1 nor P.W.2, have
stated that the filthy words written on the hanging board in front of the
accused house. As per Ex.P9 rough sketch, the alleged incident is said to
have been taken place in front of the house of the accused, assumes
significance. The reason for going to the accused house was deposed by
P.W.1. Since against his wife- P.W.2, certain defamatory words have been
written in front of the board hanging in front of the accused house. It
remains to be stated that the evidence P.W.2 and P.W.3, as could be seen
from the cross examination are to the effect that only after incidence of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
P.W.1, they came to the scene. The attestor of the seizure mahazar is Ex.P10
and observation mahazar, viz., P.W.5 has turned hostile. In respect of the
eye witness, P.W.6/Selvi, has not supported the case of the prosecution and
turned hostile.
10. Admittedly, MO.3/empty bottle, is said to have been seized
from the scene of the crime. According to the prosecution, it is an empty
bottle said to have contained acid. For the reasons not known, the
investigation officer has not send the bottle, for Forensic, what was inside
the bottle/MO.3 would likely to cause damage to the alleged of P.W.1. The
Doctor/P.W.2, who had initially given treatment for P.W.1 had issued Ex.P6
wound certificate and further, treatment was given by P.W.9/Doctor-
Senthamarai Kannan, who had issued wound certificate under Ex.P7, to
show that P.W.1 has suffered a grievous injury in the eye and the opinion is
to the effect it is truthfully as if, said to have been thrown on the face, as
spoken to by P.W.1. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not send
MO.3/bottle to ascertain the nature of the content said to have been inside
MO.3.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
11. In the absence of any forensic report as to the nature of the
substance, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is not sustainable and
accordingly, the same is modified under Section 324 of IPC and the
substantial period of sentence is already been underwent is set off and the
compensation of Rs.10,000/- is hereby confirmed.
12. In view of this matter, the criminal revision case is partly
allowed to the extent indicated above.
18.08.2021
AT
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
AT
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Vellore South L & O Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015
18.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
