Madras High Court
Ravichandran vs State By on 6 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
Ravichandran .. Petitioner
Versus
State by
Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Burgur,
Krishnagiri District.
In Crime No.11 of 2004 .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri dated 10.09.2014 in Crl.A.No.5 of 2009, so far as it relates to the
conviction and sentence of the appellant/1st accused under Section 323 of I.P.C
in C.C.No.17 of 2008 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Hariharan
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
ORDER
This Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri in C.C.No.17
of 2008 dated 23.01.2009 whereby he along with other accused in the case
namely A2 to A5 were convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 324 of
I.P.C and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the judgment of the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.5 of 2009
dated 10.09.2014, whereby the Appellate Court acquitted the accused Nos.2 to
5 in toto, acquitted the petitioner herein also for the other offences, but, altered
the conviction for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C as one of the Section
323 of I.P.C and imposed a punishment of six months Rigorous Imprisonment
with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month
Simple Imprisonment.
2. On 11.07.2004, P.W.1 Navamani lodged a complaint before the All
Women Police Station, Burgur, alleging physical and mental cruelty against her
husband P.Ravichandran (petitioner herein) and in-laws namely, Papppanna
Goundar, Muniyammal, Janaki and Jagannathan. Upon the complaint, P.W.10,
Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2004 and P.W.11,
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, the investigating officer in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
case took up the case for investigation and laid a chargesheet proposing all the
five accused guilty of the offences under Section 498-A and 324 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The papers were,
therefore, transferred to the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Krishnagiri on 01.07.2008 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Krishnagiri took the case on file in C.C.No.17 of 2008. Upon being
questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.
3. The prosecution examined the first informant, Navamani as P.W.1;
P.W.1's brother namely, one Subramani as P.W.2, who spoke about the
stridhana given to P.W.1 and about the panchayat on 15.05.2004; one
Muniammal, mother of P.W.1 as P.W.3, who spoke about the factum of
marriage and P.W.1's version given to her that she was subjected to Domestic
Violence; one Narayanan as P.W.4, who is the panchayat president, who spoke
about the conduct of panchayat between the spouses and uniting the couple;
one Elangovan as P.W.5, who also accompanied P.W.1's family in the
panchayat talks; one Ramamurthy as P.W.6, who was the mahazar witness and
who turned hostile; one Muniappa Naidu, who is also a mahazar witness and
turned hostile as P.W.7; one Dr.Masilamani as P.W.8, who gave treatment to
P.W.1 and deposed that there were three simple injuries on the head, back, right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
hand of P.W.1 and that P.W.1 also complained that she had pain in the chest
and that he issued Ex.P4, wound certificate; one Munusamy as P.W.9, who was
the Head Constable, who recorded the statement from P.W.1 when she was
admitted in the hospital after the incident; one Malliga, S.I of Police, who
registered F.I.R as P.W.10; one Bhagyaparimala, the investigating officer as
P.W.11. The prosecution marked the complaint lodged by P.W.1 as Ex.P1, the
signature of P.W.6 in the observation mahazar as Ex.P2; the signature of P.W.7
in the observation mahazar as Ex.P3; wound certificate issued to P.W.1 as
Ex.P4; the A.R copy received from the hospital as Ex.P5; the First Information
Report as Ex.P6; the observation mahazar as Ex.P6 and the rough sketch as
Ex.P8 and rested its case.
4. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record and
incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied
the same as false. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded
to hear the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and
the learned Counsel for the accused. By its judgment dated 23.01.2009, the
Trial Court believed P.W.1 and the other corroborating evidence of her
relatives and convicted all the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under
Section 498-A and 324 of I.P.C and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
imposed punishment on all the five accused.
5. Aggrieved by the same, all the five accused preferred appeal in
Crl.A.No.5 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Krishnagiri and upon appreciating the evidence, by the judgment dated
10.09.2014, the Appellate Court found that there were material contradictions
in the evidence of P.W.1 and her version about the demand of dowry as
unbelievable. The Appellate Court also found that there are contradictions
regarding her evidence as against the other persons also, since, at the earliest
point of time when she narrated the incident to the Doctor, she did not mention
the names of her in-laws. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, the
Appellate Court acquitted all the five accused of the charges under Section 498-
A of I.P.C and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, in respect of the
petitioner/first accused alone, the lower Appellate Court found on the strength
of the Ex.P9, Panchayat Muchalika that they have joined and started living
together on 17.05.2004. Therefore, it is possible and believable that thereafter
on 06.07.2004, there was a domestic unrest between the husband and the wife
and therefore, P.W.1's evidence that in the process, the husband hit his wife is
believable. However, since injuries were simple in nature and the prosecution
failed to produce the material object, namely, the wooden log, the Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
Court considering the nature of the injuries and the evidence of P.W.8, the
Doctor and the wound certificate - Ex.P4, found that the charge that the
petitioner had as a matter of fact caused injuries to P.W.1 as proved. The lower
appellate court therefore convicted the petitioner of the lesser offence, that is,
under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and imposed a punishment six months
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner has laid this Revision Case
before this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Appellate
Court.
6. Mr.J.Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
take this Court through the evidence of P.W.1 and submit that firstly, there are
contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the time of the alleged
occurrence. At one place, it is mentioned as 12'o clock, while in the evidence,
it is mentioned as 4.00 P.M. Therefore, the very occurrence itself is doubtful
and the contradiction goes to the root of the matter. Secondly, even as per the
finding of the lower Appellate Court, neighbours witnessed the incident and
throughout the investigation not even one of the neighbours who had seen the
incident were examined or produced as a witness. Thirdly, the lower Appellate
Court also found that the weapon alleged to have been used by the petitioner
namely, wooden log was not produced and therefore, once it found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
evidence of P.W.1 untrustworthy in respect of other allegations, it ought not to
have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, regarding the injuries alone, for the
purpose of convicting and therefore, he would submit that the Appellate Court
ought to have acquitted the petitioner also in toto.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would
submit that as far as the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty is
concerned, there was direct evidence only of P.W.1 and therefore, upon being
found that her evidence was shaky and it did not inspire the confidence of the
Court the accused were acquitted. As far as the offence of causing injuries is
concerned, there were corroborating evidences of the Doctor, coupled with the
fact that she was admitted into the hospital. P.W.1's evidence should be relied
upon, as far as the injuries is concerned and therefore, he would submit that the
lower Appellate Court had rightly convicted the accused.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel
on both the sides on record and also the material evidence on record. It has to
be seen that the first Appellate Court, while acquitting the accused for all the
other charges, has taken into account (a) the reliable part of the evidence of
P.W.1 that she was hit by the petitioner/accused namely her husband; (b) the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
circumstance that she had narrated so at the earliest point of time, which is
reflected in the A.R copy, which is marked as Ex.P5; third, the wound
certificate is marked as Ex.P4 and the Doctor, who treated P.W.1 was
examined as P.W.8 and therefore, when the Appellate Court, in exercise of its
appellate powers, has reappraised the entire evidence and found that it is only
the petitioner who has caused the injury on P.W.1 and has convicted the
accused for the lesser offence under Section 323 of I.P.C, as the injuries were
simple in nature and the prosecution did not produce and mark the weapon
namely, wooden log, no ground is made out, for this Court to interfere in the
revisional jurisdiction. I find that the findings of the Appellate Court can never
be treated as perverse or without any evidence and therefore, I confirm the
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.
9. However, considering the fact that the occurrence is of the year 2004,
considering the nature of the injuries i.e., three injuries of the simple in nature,
considering the finding of the Courts below which point out to the domestic
unrest between the husband and wife, considering the fact that the petitioner
herein was arrested and was in jail for a period of 10 days pending trial, I am
inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment alone, which is imposed by
the lower Appellate Court from six months Simple Imprisonment to that of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
period already undergone. The fine amount imposed by the lower Appellate
Court is confirmed.
10. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed as aforesaid.
06.12.2021
Index : yes/no
Speaking order
grs
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Burgur,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.R.C.No.1064 of 2014
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
