Madras High Court
M.Balakrishnan vs State Rep. By on 26 August, 2021
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.710 of 2017
M.Balakrishnan : Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Ambasamudram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.138/2012) : 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.15/2017, dated 05.07.2017 on the file of the IV-
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli confirming the order of
conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.285/2014, dated 01.02.2017 on
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram and set aside the same
and acquit the petitioner/appellant/accused from the charges levelled against
him.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandhran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Counsel for Government of
Tamil Nadu (Crl.side)
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed to check the
correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned IV-Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.15/2017, dated 05.07.2017,
wherein, the judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram
in S.C.No.285/2014, dated 01.02.2017 was confirmed.
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the above referred
case. Before the trial Court, he stood charged for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.
3. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Judge found the
accused guilty for an offence under Section 326 of IPC and accordingly,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for six months. The above said fine amount should be paid to
the victim as compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.PC. In respect to
the other charges, the revision petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
4. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.15/2017 before the IV-Additional
District Court, Tirunelveli. The learned IV-Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli by judgment, dated 05.07.2017 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) The accused and the defacto complainant are residing in the
same village. Prior to the occurrence, they were having the land dispute. In
2010, the accused herein assaulted the defacto complainant (P.W.1-
Paramasivan) and caused injuries on his head. In this regard, P.W.1 gave a
criminal complaint and after concluding the investigation, the same has
been pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ambasamudram. In the mean time, the accused repeatedly insisting P.W.1
to withdraw the criminal case, and on 01.05.2012 at 4.30 p.m., when P.W.1
was grazing his sheep, the accused came there and insisted upon him to
withdraw the criminal case, but, P.W.1 responded that they would settle the
issue only through the Court. Suddenly, enraged the accused by saying that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
“eP capNuhL ,Ue;jhy;jhNd Nf]; elf;Fk;> ,j;NjhL nrj;J njhiy
vd;W nrhy;yp”attacked P.W.1 on his head with sickle repeatedly. When
P.W.1 trying to prevent the attack through his hand, he sustained injury on
his right shoulder and right forehead, he raised hue and cry and others came
there by raising shouts and on seeing the others, the accused left the scene
of occurrence by indulging threaten.
(ii) P.W.2-Jeya Pramachi, who is the wife of P.W.1, arranged
Ambulance and admitted P.W.1 in the Ambasamudram Government
Hospital, for treatment.
(iii) In the hospital, P.W.8-Dr.Venkatachalapathy examined P.W.1
and found the following injuries:-
“cut injuries on his right shoulder and right elbow with bone deep
measuring 12 x 4 cm and 11 x 4 cm respectively”.
According to him, the said 2 injuries were grievous in nature. In this regard,
he issued an Accident Register under Ex.P2. Further, after giving first aid,
he referred P.W.1 to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Palayakottai,
wherein, P.W.9-Dr.Praveen, examined the injured and took the X-ray and
issued a certificate as the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
nature. In the X-ray taken by the Hospital Authorities are marked as
M.O.2 series.
(iv) When at the time P.W.1 was in hospital, P.W.10-Kannan, the
then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambasamudram, came there and around 5.30
p.m., he recorded the statement of P.W.1. After recording the statement
from him, P.W.10, returned to the police station and registered a case
against the accused in Crime No.138/2012 for the offences punishable under
sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The complaint given by P.W.1
was marked as Ex.P1 and the printed FIR was marked as Ex.P3. After
registration of the case, P.W.10 handed over the FIR to the Inspector of
Police, for investigation.
(v) In turn, P.W.11-Suresh Kumar, the then Inspector of Police,
Ambasamudram Police Station, took up the case for investigation and on the
same day around 7.45 p.m., he visited the occurrence place and prepared an
Observation Mahazar under Ex.P4. He drawn the Rough Sketch and the
same has been marked as Ex.P5. In the presence of P.W.6-Ganesan and
P.W.7-Manikandan he recovered a sickle under the cover of Seizure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
Mahazar under Ex.P6. He examined the witnesses and recorded their
statements on 20.07.2012.
(vi) Finally, after concluding the investigation, he came to the
positive conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC. He
filed a final report, accordingly.
6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the
charges against the accused under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii)
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 11
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 6 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, besides two Material Objects M.O.1 & M.O.2.
(i) Out of the above said witnesses, PW1-Paramasivan, who is the
defacto complainant/injured, speaks about the occurrence as during the
relevant point of time when he was grazing his sheep, the accused came
there and attacked on his right shoulder and right forehead.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
(ii) P.W.2-Jeya Piramachi is the wife of P.W.1. Though she has
narrated the occurrence in her chief-examination, during the time when she
was put under the cross-examination, she has stated that only after getting
information from the person, who attended the festival, she came to the
occurrence place and saw the injured. Therefore, the said evidence is clear
that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence.
(iii) P.W.3-Muthupandi and P.W.4-Kailasam are the alleged eye
witnesses and they did not give any evidence to support the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, after getting leave from the Court, they were treated
as hostile witnesses.
(iv) P.W.5-Selvi.Chandra, who is the daughter of P.W.1, speaks
about the details in respect to the treatment taken by the injured.
(v) P.W.6-Ganesan and P.W.7-Manikandan are the alleged
witnesses attested in the Observation Mahazar and in the Seizure Mahazar
prepared for recovery of sickle and they have not given any evidence in
support of the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
(vi) P.W.8-Dr.Venkatachalapathy and P.W.9-Dr.Praveen are the
doctors. They gave evidence in respect to the treatment given to the injured
and also about the nature of injuries sustained by the injured.
(vii) P.W.10-Kannan and P.W.11-Suresh Kumar are the police
officers speaks about the receipt of the complaint from P.W.1 and about the
investigation.
7. 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.
8. 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 IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.15 of 2017.
9. I have heard Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandhran, learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. I have also
perused the records carefully.
10. It is the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner that due to the previous enmity, P.W.1 lodged a false
complaint against the accused. It is a case of the prosecution that at the time
when the accused assaulted P.W.1, there was a crowd for attending the
festival, but none of the persons, who saw the occurrence, has not given any
evidence in support of the prosecution. Therefore, the Courts below without
considering the said aspects, convicted the accused, which is erroneous in
law.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent would submit that the evidence given by
P.W.1 in respect to the assault made by the accused is fully corroborated by
means of evidence given by the doctor. Therefore, for accepting the case of
the prosecution, the evidence of others not necessary. According to him, the
findings rendered by the Courts below should not be disturbed by this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel
appearing on either side.
13. Before the trial Court, the copy of the FIR, which is the
earliest document prepared by the Investigating Officer, was marked as
Ex.P3. Now, on go through the contents of the said FIR, it appears that the
alleged occurrence had happened on 01.05.2012 around 16.30 hours,
thereafter, the case has been registered on the same day around 19.00 hours
and the said FIR has been received by the Magistrate on 02.05.2012 at about
12.10 hours. Therefore, considering the said factors, it should be necessary
to believe that the case has been registered without any delay.
14. Now, on go through the averments found in the complaint, it
seems that during the relevant point of time, the accused came there with
sickle and after insisting P.W.1 for withdrawing the case, which is pending
before the Magistrate Court, attacked P.W.1 and caused two injuries.
Further, the said averment was corroborated during the time when the
defacto complainant has given as P.W.1, more than that, corresponding to
the said evidence, the doctors P.W.8 and P.W.9, who treated P.W.1, gave
evidence as the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are grievous in nature. Further,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
the same has been decided after taking X-ray to the injuries sustained by
P.W.1. Accordingly, the evidence given by P.W.1 in respect to the
occurrence is fully corroborated through the evidence given by the Medical
Officers.
15. No doubt, P.W.1 and the accused are having previous enmity
in respect to the land dispute, further, another one case has been registered
against the accused alleging that he caused injury to P.W.1, therefore, being
the reason that the accused is having enmity with P.W.1, there may be a
possibility to attack him as alleged by the prosecution.
16. It is true that the alleged eye witnesses, who are all present
during the time of occurrence, had not given any evidence in support of the
prosecution. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned as observed by the
Supreme Court the evidence of an ocular witness, if accepted, is sufficient
to warrant conviction though in appropriate cases the court may as a
measure a caution seek some confirming circumstances from other sources.
But ordinarily, the evidence of a truthful eye witness is sufficient without
anything more, to warrant a conviction and cannot, for instance, be made to
depend for its acceptance on the truthfulness of other items of evidence such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
as recovery of weapons etc, at the instance of the accused by the police.
Only, in the circumstances, the evidence of a witness when is neither wholly
unacceptable nor wholly impeccable, corroboration is essential.
17. In otherwise, it is a case as rightly pointed out by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent that the evidence given
by P.W.1 is wholly reliable and therefore, corroboration of other witnesses
is not necessary. As a general rule court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness though uncorroborated, that unless corroboration is insisted
upon by statute the court should not insist upon corroboration. Therefore,
applying the said principles with the case in our hand, herein it is a case, no
circumstances warrants to corroborate the evidence given by P.W.1.
Therefore, I fully endorsed with the findings arrived at by the Courts below.
In otherwise, this Court did not hold that the judgment rendered by the
Courts below is a perverse or cross injustice. Hence, the Criminal Revision
Case is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner seeks some leniency in awarding the sentence to the
revision petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
19. On considering the same, for the reason that the petitioner is
facing the trial in this case for the past 8 years, I am of the opinion that
sentencing the revision petitioner for a period of two years Rigorous
Imprisonment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
20. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed,
the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below on the appellant
under Section 326 of IPC is reduced to two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months is
confirmed. The above said fine amount should be paid to the victim as
compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.PC. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by the revision petitioner shall be
set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
26.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Ambasamudram Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub-Court,
Ambasamudram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.710 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.710 of 2017
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
