Madras High Court
Pasupathy vs State Represented By on 26 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
1. Pasupathy
2. Saroja ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. State Represented by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Perunagar Police Station,
Kanchipuram District
(Crime No.905 of 2012)
2. Santha ...Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanchipuram on 24.07.2019
in C.A.No.2 of 2017 and confirming the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate I, Kanchipuram, in C.C.No.105 of 2015 dated
15.12.2016.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Jamuna Rani for
M/s.K.M.Balaji
Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1
*******
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the accused against the
reversal judgment of conviction made by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanchipuram on 24.07.2019 in C.A.No.2 of 2017
partly modifying the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram, in C.C.No.105 of 2015 dated 15.12.2016.
2 The first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.905
of 2012 against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 294(b) and
506(ii) of IPC and after investigation laid a charge sheet, which was taken
on file in C.C.No.105 of 2015. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after trial
and hearing the arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated
15.12.2016, acquitted the petitioners from all the charges levelled against
them. Assailing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the
deaccto complainant had preferred an appeal, which was taken on file in
C.A.No.2 of 2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court) Kanchipuram, after hearing both the parties, by judgment dated
24.07.2019 partly allowed the appeal by convicting the petitioners for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
offence under Section 294(b) and confirmed the acquittal for the offence
under Section 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default, each to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
week for the offence under Section 294(b). Aggrieved against the said
reversal judgment of conviction, the accused are now before this Court with
the present criminal revision case.
3 According to learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/accused, about the crucial evidence of the memory card, in
which, the alleged occurrence said to have been recorded, has not been
mentioned either in the complaint or in the 164 statement. Hence, it is not a
credible evidence and based on which, conviction cannot be recorded. The
trial Court, by appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a
right perspective, has rightly held that the petitioners/accused are not found
guilty of the offence charged against them. But, the lower appellate Court
erroneously relied on the disputed memory card, has even though confirmed
the acquittal for the offence under Section 506(ii), convicted the
petitioners/accused for the offence under Section 294(b), which warrants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
interference of this Court.
4 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent police would submit that based on the complaint given by
P.W.1 the present case was registered. P.W.1, being the victim, has clearly
deposed the occurrence and the accused scolded P.W.1 with filthy language
and evidence of P.W.2 also corroborated the same. The Memory Card, in
which the occurrence has been recorded was marked as M.O.1. While, the
memory card was played before the Court, a female voice was heard
scolding by using filthy language. Even though the trial Court acquitted the
petitioners/accused, the lower appellate Court has convicted for the offence
under Section 294(b) and confirmed the acquittal for the offence under
Section 506(ii) of IPC and the same does not call for any interference of this
Court.
5 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
6 Case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between
the defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused with reference to some
land dispute, the petitioners came to defacto complainant's house and
shouted at her in front of her house using filthy language and threatened
with dire consequences. Hence present case has been registered against the
petitioners.
7 This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot
exercise power of the Appellate Court and this Court, being a revisional
Court, cannot sit in the arm chair of appellate Court and it has no power to
re-assess the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. Further,
while deciding the revision, it can only see whether there is any perversity
in appreciation of evidence by the Courts below.
8 A careful reading of the materials placed before this Court, it is
seen that M.O.1, the memory card has been produced before the Court and
was marked, in which, the alleged occurrence said to have been recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
When the above Memory Card was played before the Court, there was one
female voice scolding using filthy language. P.W.1 in her evidence clearly
stated that the petitioners/accused scolded her using filthy language and at
that time, she asked P.W.3, who came there, to record the same in his
Mobile Phone. The evidence of P.W.3, who is an independent witness, has
also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. Prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate acquitted the
petitioners/accused mainly on the ground that prosecution has not proved
that the female voice in the Memory Card is that of the second
petitioner/A2. It is seen that the petitioners had not denied their presence in
the scene of occurrence. Once prosecution has proved that the accused were
present in the scene of occurrence and they only scolded the witness with
filthy language, it is for the petitioners/accused to prove that the voice heard
in the Memory Card is not that of the second petitioner/A2 and they failed
to prove the same. Even though, the trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a right perspective, the lower
appellate Court, being a final Court of fact finding, has re-appreciated the
entire evidence and modified the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
Court by convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 294(b) and
confirmed the acquittal for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC. This
Court does not any perversity in the judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
9 Accordingly, this criminal revision shall stand dismissed. The
trial Court is directed to secure the revision petitioners to execute the
sentence as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court), Kanchipuram, on 24.07.2019 in C.A.No.2 of 2017.
26.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
cgi
To
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanchipuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate I, Kanchipuram.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station,
Kanchipuram District
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Crl.R.C.No.1156 of 2019
26.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
