Madras High Court

S.Kannadasan vs The State By on 4 March, 2021

                                                                          Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 04.03.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                         Criminal Revision Case No.128 of 2021
                                             and Crl.M.P.No.2511 of 2021

                     S.Kannadasan                                                ... Petitioner

                                                         ..vs..
                     The State By:
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Kurijipadi Police Station,
                     Cuddalore District.
                     (Crime No.38 of 2016)                                       ... Respondent


                               Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401
                     Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgment in C.A.No.100 of 2018 dated
                     23.12.2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                     Cuddalore District, on confirming the order passed by the II Additional
                     Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore dated 04.10.2018 in S.C.No.384 of
                     2017 and call for the records and acquit the petitioner from all the
                     charges.
                               For Petitioner     :   Mr.P.Rajavel
                               For Respondent     :   Mr.K.Madhan
                                                      Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                     Page No.1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

                                                    ORDER

Mr.K.Madhan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes

notice for the respondent. By consent of both parties, the matter is taken

up today, for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against judgment

dated 23.12.2020 in Crl.A.No.100 of 2018 passed by the learned

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District, in and by

which, confirming the judgment of the learned II Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Cuddalore dated 04.10.2018 in S.C.No.384 of 2017.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2016

against the petitioner herein and three others for the offence under

Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC. After investigation, the

respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore and the case was taken on file in

P.R.C.No.14 of 2017. The learned Magistrate, after considering the fact

that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are

triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Principal

Page No.2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.384

of 2017 and made over to II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Cuddalore. The learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge framed

charges against the petitioner and three others for the offence under

Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC.

4.In order to prove the case on the side of prosecution, as many as

9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 8 documents were

marked as Exs.P1 to P8, besides, one material object as M.O.1 was

exhibited on its side.

5.After completion of the prosecution side evidences, the

incriminating evidences and circumstances were put to the accused by

examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and they have denied

all the incriminating evidences and circumstances. On the side of the

defence, no oral and documentary evidence were marked.

6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either

Page No.3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the

petitioner/A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo sentence of

imprisonment for a period of six months and he was acquitted for the

offence under Section 294(b) IPC. The accused 2 to 4 were acquitted for

the offences under Section 294(b) and 307 IPC.

7.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the

petitioner/A1 preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge,

Cuddalore and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.100 of 2018 and

made over to I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. After

hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the

materials available on record, the learned I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Cuddalore dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the said

judgment the petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision

Case.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 vehemently contended

Page No.4/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

that the chemical analysis report was not produced and the weapon used

for attack was not co-related with the human blood, which is belonging

to the injured witness. The evidence of the eye witness is not supported

the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the evidence of

the victim P.W.1 was not corroborated with the other prosecution

witnesses. Therefore, both the Court below failed to appreciate that there

are contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and

statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and has also failed to

consider the fact that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC is not made out

in this case. The injuries sustained by the victim was simple in nature.

The prosecution has not substantiated that the injuries sustained by the

injured witness would lead to conviction. Therefore, the judgment of the

trial Court is liable to be set aside.

9.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that

the prosecution has not established its case under Section 294(b) IPC.

However, the prosecution established its case that the accused used the

weapon i.e. Iron rod to attack the victim is a deadly weapon, which

Page No.5/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

attracts Section 307 IPC. The Doctor, who gave treatment to the victim,

was examined as P.W.7 and he has opined that the injuries sustained by

the victim are simple in nature and he mentioned the injuries in the

Accident Register, which was marked as Ex.P5. The weapon used by the

accused was marked as M.O.1. From the evidence of the victim (P.W.1)

and eye witness (P.W.2), Accident Register (Ex.P5) and Material Object

(M.O.1), the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial Court found that there is a substantive overt act attributed

against the petitioner/A1 herein and convicted and sentenced the

petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and awarded lesser

punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment and hence, there is no

merit in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the

materials available on record.

11.Admittedly, the respondent police registered the case in Crime

Page No.6/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

No.38 of 2016 against the petitioner herein and three others for the

offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC. The petitioner

herein was arrayed as A1. After investigation, charges were framed

against the petitioner and three others for the offence under Section

294(b) and 307 IPC. On completion of trial, the petitioner/A1 found

guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and other accused acquitted

from the charges. The victim was examined as P.W.1, has clearly stated

that the petitioner attacked him with iron rod. Soon after the occurrence,

the eye witness (P.W.2) took the injured to the Kurinjipadi Government

Hospital, for treatment. P.W.7, the Doctor who gave treatment to the

victim made an entry in the Accident Register (Ex.P5) and noted the

injuries sustained by the victim as follows :

''1.Laceration of the size 8x1x1 c.m. over the right side of parietal region

2.V shaped laceration of size 6x1x1 c.m back side of the head and the doctor had opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The doctor had also opined that P.W.1 could have sustained the above said injuries as narrated by P.W.1 i.e.

Page No.7/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.128 of 2021

injuries being caused by iron road.'' Therefore, to convict the accused, the quantum of witnesses is not

necessary, but, it is only based on the quality of the witness.

12. Admittedly, P.W.1 the victim sustained injuries, P.W.7 Doctor,

who gave treatment opined that the injuries sustained by the victim is

simple in nature and also he noted the injuries in the Accident Register.

The Investigation Officer (P.W.9) recovered the material object M.O.1.

Therefore, on combined reading of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7, Ex.P5 and

M.O.1, the place in which the victim sustained injuries, the Court below

has rightly convicted the petitioner.

13. It is settled proposition of law, when the Trial Court and the

Appellate Court had already appreciated the entire evidence and also

given the findings, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court

cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and reappreciate the

evidences. Therefore, this Court has to see only as to whether any