Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 2 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
1.Senthilkumar
2.Bala Murugesan
... Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by Inspector of Police,
K.G.Chavadi Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.1539/2011)
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the Modifying the order of the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Coimbatore made in C.A.No.33 of 2014 dated 18.12.2015
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Judicial
Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.507 of 2012 dated
17.02.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
***
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
dated 18.12.2015 made in C.A.No.33 of 2014.
2. The revision petitioners are the accused in this case. The case of the
prosecution is that on 03.08.2011 at about 3.30.p.m, the accused abused
PW2/Dharmalingam with obscene words, due to their previous enmity in
connection with the property dispute. At that time, the second
accused/Balamurugesan attacked PW2 on his head and caused simple injury.
A1/Senthilkumar attacked PW3/Muthulakshmi on her right hand and head
with the handle of a spade and injured her. They also threatened PWs2 and 3
to kill.
3. On the complaint given by PW1/sister of PW3, a case was registered
in Crime No.1539 of 2011 of K.G.Chavadi police station under Section
294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The case was registered and FIR was prepared
by PW6/Ms.Saida, Sub Inspector of Police. She took up the case for
investigation, went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation
mahazar (Ex.P5) and rough sketch(Ex.P7) in the presence of the witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements on 04.08.2011 and
at about 3.00.a.m, she arrested the accused and sent them to remand. The case
properties recovered from PW1 and later sent to the Court. She examined the
doctor, who registered the Accident Register and treated the injured and got
the wound certificates (Exs.P3 & P4). The investigation was completed by
PW7-Mr.FrancisXavier, Sub Inspector of Police. After completing
investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused under Sections
294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. After the case was taken on file and on
considering the materials, the learned Trial Judge framed the charges against
the first accused for the offence under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC
and against the second accused for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324
and 506(ii) IPC. The accused were questioned and they denied their
involvement.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, seven
witnesses were examined as PW1 to 7, seven documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P7 and three Material Objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. On the
side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document has been
marked. At the conclusion of trial and after consideration of the materials
available on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
imposed the punishment as under:
Accused Offence Punishment Imposed
A1 325 IPC To undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default rigorous
imprisonment for one month
A2 324 IPC To undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default rigorous
imprisonment for one month
5. The accused challenged the judgment of the trial Court by way of
filing the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.33 of 2014 before the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The said appeal was partly allowed
and the judgment of the trial Court is modified as under:
Accused Offence Punishment Imposed
A1 325 IPC To undergo nine months rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default simple
imprisonment for one month
A2 324 IPC To undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default simple
imprisonment for one month
6. Aggrieved over that, the accused have preferred the present Criminal
Revision Case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
8. Point for consideration:
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused (A1 & A2)
for the offence under Sections 324 & 325 IPC by the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge based on the materials
available on record is fair and proper?
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the
Courts below omitted to appreciate the contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and give the benefit of doubt to the accused.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
State submitted that the injured witnesses had deposed about the occurrence
and it has been corroborated with the medical certificates and the evidence of
the doctor. The cross examination of the prosecution witnesses could not
demolish the case of the prosecution and hence, the present revision is liable
to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
11. It is alleged that on 03.08.2011 at about 3.00.p.m, due to previous
enmity out of a civil dispute, the accused abused PW2 and thereafter, both the
accused attacked PWs2 and 3 by using spade and handle of the spade.
Immediately, after the occurrence, PW1 has given the complaint and the
weapons used for the occurrence were also handed over to the police and they
were also identified by the witnesses during their cross examination. Apart
from the injured witnesses, de facto complainant who was examined as PW1
also witnessed the occurrence. His evidence tallies to the evidence of PWs2
and 3. I do not find any material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to
PW3, which would affect the case of the prosecution or falsify the same. The
doctor, who was examined as PW4, had registered accident register for PWs2
and 3. When PWs2 and 3 were taken to the hospital for treatment, they told
the doctor that they were beaten by three known persons. However, the third
person has not been arrayed as accused. Despite evidence of PWs1 to 3 are
consistent, cogent and correct and the Courts below have appreciated their
evidences in correct perspective.
12. Hence, I do not find any legal, factual infirmity so as to interfere
with the judgments of the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
02.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate-VII,
Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
K.G.Chavadi Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.688 of 2016
02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
