Madras High Court
Vimala vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 19 August, 2021
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :19.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
Vimala
W/o, Sekar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police,
H-1, Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai – 21.
... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records
pertaining to C.A.No.327 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Chennai and set aside the order passed in the above C.A.No.327
of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 confirming the conviction and sentence passed
by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and
consequently set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in
C.C.No.1171 of 2017 dated 12.04.2018 by the XV Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and acquit the petitioner.
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narendran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
for Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the
judgment passed in C.A.No.327 of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 on the file of
the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,
Chennai in C.C.No.1171 of 2017 dated 12.04.2018.
2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in
Crime No.581 of 2016 for the offence under section 326 I.P.C. After
investigating the matter, laid a charge sheet before the XV Metropolitan
Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The learned Magistrate, after taking
the charge sheet on file, framed the charges and after completing the trial,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
found guilt of the petitioner for the offence under section 325 I.P.C,
convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo one year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one
month simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of
conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.327 of 2018. The learned
Principal Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments, dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate. Challenging the said judgment of dismissal,
the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and in order
to prove the grievous injury, X-ray report has not been marked in this
case. Without the X-ray report, the petitioner cannot be convicted for the
offence under section 325 I.P.C. The doctor who had given treatment to
the injured was examined as P.W.6. The evidence of the eye witness is
not corroborated with the medical evidence. The learned Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
failed to consider the evidence of doctor P.W.6 who has deposed that
there is a possibility of fracture/wound, if the victim has fallen on the
ground. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that there was no
evidence let in by the witnesses for the prosecution to establish the scene
of occurrence in the observation mahazar. Since there are material
contradictions and there is no corroborating evidence, the prosecution
failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Magistrate
without considering the evidenciary value of the witness, simply
convicted the petitioner on the ground of sympathy and assumption.
Further when the petitioner filed the appeal before the Principal Sessions
Court, Chennai, the learned Principal Sessions Judge failed to appreciate
the evidence independently and simply endorsed the views of the
Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Therefore the judgment of both the
courts are perverse and the same are liable to be set aside and the
revision could be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the official respondent would submit that the injured was examined as
P.W.1. He has clearly narrated the incident. P.W.2 corroborated the
evidence of P.W.1. and the injuries sustained by P.W.1. P.W.5 and P.W.6
are medical officers and P.W.5, doctor who had attended the victim
during the admission in the hospital. He made entry in the accident
register and in the accident register, he noted the injuries sustained by
P.W.1. There was a fracture in the left hand index finger of P.W.1. and
P.W.6 issued wound certificate. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.1,
the injured witness and the doctors P.Ws.5 and 6 and Ex.P2, the accident
register, Ex.P3, wound certificate, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly
appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused and the appellate
court also dismissed the appeal filed by the accused. There is no merit in
the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the official
respondent and perused the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/petitioner was the
tenant in P.W.1's house and she already vacated the premises. Thereafter
on the date of occurrence, the petitioner came to P.W.1's house on the
guise of taking back her fan, abused P.W.1 in filthy language and also
assaulted her with hands and thereby caused grievous injuries to her.
Hence the complaint.
7. The learned Magistrate after framing the charges against the
petitioner for the offence under section 326 I.P.C, in order to substantiate
the charges framed against the petitioner, on the side of the prosecution,
totally seven witnesses were examined and seven documents were
marked. Out of seven witnesses, the injured witness was examined as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
P.W.1, who has clearly deposed about the incident and also from the
evidence of P.W.1, it is found that the petitioner is a known person and
prior to the occurrence, she was the tenant of P.W.1 and she vacated the
house seven months prior to the occurrence. On the date of occurrence
she came to the house of P.W.1 and informed that she left the fan and she
wanted to take the same. When P.W.1 stated that there was no fan left by
the petitioner, all of a sudden, developing a quarrel and the petitioner
attacked P.W.1. Due to that, she sustained injury and one of the injury is
a fracture in the index finger. P.W.2 is also one of the resident in the
house of P.W.1. On the date of occurrence, on hearing the quarrel sound,
she went there and found that there was a quarrel between petitioner and
P.W.1, due to that, the petitioner attacked P.W.1 and she sustained injury
and she took P.W.1 to the Stanely Hospital. P.W.3 also corroborated the
same. P.W.5 and 6 are the doctors and P.W.5 is the doctor who attended
P.W.1 at the time when she was admitted in hospital and made entry in
the accident register. On a reading of Ex.P2 it clearly shows that known
person attacked P.W.1 and she sustained injury. P.W.6 is the doctor who
has given further treatment to P.W.1 and issued wound certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
Ex.P3. It clearly shows that P.W.1 sustained fracture on her left hand
index finger. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness,
evidence of P.W.2, neighbour and the medical evidence, prosecution
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Though the learned counsel for
the petitioner vehemently contended that there is a material contradiction
and also X-ray report has not been produced, on a reading of evidence of
P.Ws.1,2,5 and 6, it is found that P.W.1 sustained injury which was
caused by the petitioner and the injury is grievous in nature. Eventhough
the X-ray report has not been marked, the medical evidence of P.W.6
cannot be totally ignored and the evidence of medical officer cannot be
discarded. Further it is a well settled proposition of law, mere defect in
investigation is not the sole ground to discard the evidence of the victim.
Though, the charge framed under section 326 IPC, considering the
materials, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 325 I.P.C
and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
8. The scope of the revision is very limited and the revisional court
while dealing with the revision has to see as to whether there is any
perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the judgment. Therefore,
while deciding the revision, the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm
chair of the appellate court and reappreciate the entire materials. On a
reading of the materials, both the Courts passed the concurrent judgment
based on the injured witness which was corroborated by P.W.2 and
further it was strengthen by the medical evidence. In this case, there is
no perversity in the appreciation of evidence and there is no merit in the
revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Revision
Case is dismissed.
19.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mfa
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
mfa
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Principal Sessions Court,
Chennai
2. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate,
George Town,
Chennai.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
H-1, Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai – 21.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
CRL.R.C.No.142 of 2019
19.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
