Indirani vs Lavanya
2021 Latest Caselaw 17720 Mad

                                                                             CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                               DATED: 31.08.2021

                                                         Coram:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                        Criminal Revision Case No.598 of 2019
                                                         and
                                              Crl.M.P.No.8116 of 2019

                      Indirani                         ..Petitioner/Appellant/Defacto Complainant
                                                            Vs.
                      1. Lavanya
                      2. Pushpa
                      3. Thiagarajan
                      4. Tamil Selvan                   ...Respondents/Respondents/Accused

                      5.The Sub Inspector of Police
                        Adhiyamankottai Police Station
                        Dharmapuri District
                        (Crime No.180 of 2011)       ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

                      Prayer :    Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
                      Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgment dated
                      06.02.2019 passed in C.A.No.12 of 2017 by the learned Principal District
                      and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri confirming the Judgment dated
                      07.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the learned Judicial
                      Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

                                    For Petitioner            :Mr.M.Karthik
                                                               for Mr.Annagandhi V.R.
                                    For Respondent-5          : Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                      1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                           CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019


                                                      ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the Judgment dated

06.02.2019 passed in C.A.No.12 of 2017 by the learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, confirming the Judgment dated

07.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.1 of 2012 by the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

2. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner herein, the 5th

respondent police registered the case in Crime No.180 of 2011 as against

the respondents 1,2,4 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b)

and 323 IPC and as against the respondent 3 for the offences under

Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. After completing the investigation,

the respondent police laid the charge sheet and the learned Judicial

Magistrate-II, Dharmapuri, taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.1 of

2012. After completing the formalities, framed charges as against the

respondents 1,2,4 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and

323 IPC and as against the respondent 3 for the offences under Sections

294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. On conclusion of trial, the learned

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

Magistrate found the respondents 1 to 4 not guilty and acquitted them.

Challenging the said Judgment of acquittal, the petitioner herein filed an

appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri and

the same was taken on file in C.A.No.12 of 2017. The learned Sessions

Judge, after hearing the arguments and and re-appreciating the evidence,

found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. Challenging the

said Judgment of dismissal of appeal, the defacto complainant has filed

the present revision before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that P.W.1

is the injured witness and she has spoken about the incident. P.W.7 is the

doctor who treated the injured witness and the doctor has clearly stated

that he had treated the injured witness and the wound certificate/Ex.P.3

says it is a simple injury which clearly shows, that P.W.1 has been

assaulted. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborated the

evidence of P.W.1 whereas, the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the

same and acquitted the respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, the petitioner

approached the appellate Court whereas, the appellate Judge, without

properly re-appreciating the evidence, simply endorsed the views of the

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Judgments of

the Courts below warrants interference.

4. The learned Government (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent

police would submit that P.W.1 has stated that she sustained injury. But

the doctor who treated P.W.1 has stated that there was no external injury.

However, since P.W.1 complained about pain in the right hand shoulder,

X-ray was taken and found no fracture or internal injury. Further, P.W.2

and P.W.3 are not eye witnesses to this case and P.W.1 has not stated that

P.W.2 and P.W.3 witnessed the incident. Further, P.W.4 is the husband of

P.W.1 and that he was not present at the time of alleged occurrence and

only after the incident, when he came home, P.W.1 informed him about

the incident. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court extended

the benefit of doubt to the respondents 1 to 4 and acquitted them. This

Court can take a different view especially when the appeal or revision is

against acquittal, if compelled circumstances warrant otherwise not. The

learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the

prosecution proved its case however, both the Courts not convinced with

the evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, both the Courts failed to

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

appreciate the evidence.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and

perused the materials on record.

6. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.11.2011 at about 4.30

p.m. the accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and assaulted

her with stones and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence,

the case.

7. The scope of the revision is very limited. This Court cannot sit in

the arm chair of the appellate Court and cannot re-appreciate or re-assess

the evidence as trial Court and appellate Court. As a revision Court, this

Court while exercising its power, has to find out whether there is any

perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the Judgments passed by the

Courts below. Unless there is a perversity, the revision Court cannot

interfere with the Judgments of the Courts below.

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

8. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and also

P.W.7/doctor and the wound certificate/Ex.P.3, it is clear that there is no

external injury and there is contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2

and P.W.3. As stated by the trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge,

P.W.1 has not stated that at the time of occurrence, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were

present. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the trial Court rightly

appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 which cannot be taken or

given effect to, since, P.W.1 has not stated anything about the presence of

P.W.2 and P.W.3. Further, from the evidence of the doctor/P.W.7 and the

wound certificate/Ex.P.3, it is clear that there is no internal or external

injury and there was only complaints of pain and the doctor opined that

possibility of severe pain. Therefore, under these circumstances when two

views are possible, the benefits should got to the accused. If the trial

Court acquitted the accused and the appellate Court confirmed the

acquittal, the High Court in revision, cannot not re-examine and re-

appreciate the evidence to come to a contrary conclusion. The revision

court cannot substitute own reasons and its views on findings of fact by

both the courts below. Unless there is perversity in appreciation of

evidence by both the courts below, the Revisional court will not interfere

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

with the findings of the courts below. A reading of the averments in the

complaint and the material evidence produced before the trial court and

the findings of the trial court show that the trial court has rightly

appreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion and acquitted the

petitioner. Unless compelled circumstances warrants, revision against

acquittal cannot be interfered. Therefore, under these circumstances, this

Court does not find any merit in the revision petition and there is no

compelled circumstances to interfere with the findings of the Courts

below.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

31.08.2021 ksa-2

http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.RC.No.598 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J

ksa-2

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police Adhiyamankottai Police Station Dharmapuri District

4. The Public Prosecutor Officer, High Court, Madras.

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

Criminal Revision Case No.598 of 2019

31.08.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in