Palanisamy vs Muthulakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 17499 Mad

                                                                    CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED :26.08.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                             CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

                      1. Palanisamy
                        S/o, Samiappa Gounder

                      2. Rangasamy
                         S/o, Ramasamy Gounder                                   ... Petitioners

                                                    Versus

                      1. Muthulakshmi
                         W/o Duraisamy

                      2. The State represented by
                         The Inspector of Police,
                         Uthiyur Police Station,
                         Tiruppur District.                                    ...
                      Respondents

                      PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of
                      the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction and
                      sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur,
                      Tiruppur District on 15.06.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2019
                      convicting and sentencing the petitioners/respondents No.2 and 3/Accused

                      Page No.1 of 8


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                        CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

                      No.1 and 2 herein to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the
                      offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by setting aside the
                      judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
                      Kankayam, Tiruppur District on 10.02.2014 in S.T.C.No.1197 of 2011.
                                       For Petitioners   : Mr.G.Saravanan

                                       For R1            : Mr.K.Sudhakar

                                       For R2            : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment

of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Tiruppur, on 15.06.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2019 by setting

aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Kankayam, Tiruppur District on 10.02.2014 in S.T.C.No.1197 of 2011.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioners

and another in Crime No.192 of 2010 for the offence under section 294(b)

and 323 I.P.C. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the Judicial

Magistrate Kangayam, Tiruppur District. The learned Magistrate taken the

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

case on file in S.T.C.No.1197 of 2011 and after the trial, acquitted the

petitioners and challenging the same, the first respondent has filed the

appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.89 of

2019. The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur after hearing the arguments

and perused the records, allowed the appeal in part and setaside the order

passed by the Magistrate in S.T.C.No.1197 of 2011. Now challenging the

judgment of the appellate court, the petitioners/accused has filed the

present revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no

evidence with regard to previous enmity and the motive for the occurrence

and P.W.2 and P.W.3 are only hearsay witnesses. There are material

contradictions between the witnesses. Though P.W.1 is said to have the

injured witness, there are material contradictions between the injured

witness and the medical evidence in the manner of the occurrence and also

in the manner of injuries sustained by her.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the first

respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the official respondent.

5. The case of the prosecution is, with regard to pathway, there is a

dispute between the complainant/first respondent's family and the accused.

On the date of occurrence 08.10.2020, the accused abused the

complainant with filthy language and assaulted her with hands and caused

injuries and she was admitted in the hospital for treatment. She gave a

complaint to the second respondent police and the respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.192 of 2010 for the offence under section

294(b) and 323 of IPC.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the learned

Magistrate, on the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined

as P.Ws.1 to 8 and eight documents were marked. No material object was

exhibited. The learned Magistrate not found guilt of the petitioners for the

offence u/s 294(b) and 323 IPC and acquitted them. In this case, out of

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

eight witnesses, injured was examined as P.W.1 and in order to

corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, the doctor was examined as P.W.6 who

is spoken about the injury sustained by P.W.1 and also wound certificate

marked as Ex.P3. The appellate court is a fact finding court, re-

appreciated the evidence and from of the evidence of the injured witness

P.W.1, and doctor P.W.6 and also the wound certificate Ex.P3, found that

the petitioners caused injuries to P.W.1 and set aside the judgment of

acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and allowed the appeal and

passed the judgment that petitioners were found guilty for the offence

under section 323 I.P.C and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one week for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. The

appellate court has rightly appreciated that there is no independent

witness to prove that the petitioners scolded P.W.1 with filthy language,

acquitted the petitioners for the offence under section 294(b) I.P.C.

However considering the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and also the evidence

of P.W.1, doctor P.W.5 and the wound certificate Ex.P3, found guilt of the

petitioners, convicted the petitioner under section 323 I.P.C.

7. The scope of the revision is very limited and the revisional court

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

while dealing with the revision has to see as to whether there is any

perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the judgment. It is a well

settled proposition of law that the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm

chair of the appellate court and reappreciate the entire materials. This

Court finds that there is no arguable points canvassed by the revision

petitioners in the grounds of revision and also does not find any perversity

in the appreciation of evidence and there is no merit in the revision and the

same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

26.08.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mfa

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate Court, Kankayam, Tiruppur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

CRL.R.C.No.409 of 2021

26.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in