Madras High Court
S.Raji vs State Rep. By on 2 November, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Criminal Revision Case No.1009 of 2014
1.S.Raji
2.Ramesh .. Petitioners
Versus
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Olakkur Police Station,
Dindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.302 of 2013 .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure prayed to set aside the order of judgment passed
in C.A.No.17 of 2014 by the No.I, Additional District and Sessions Court,
Dindivanam dated 23.09.2014 confirming the judgment passed in
C.C.No.142 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindivanam, dated
30.04.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvakumaraswami
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
ORDER
The petitioners have come forward with this Criminal Revision Case
challenging the order passed by the learned No.I, Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Dindivanam, dated 23.09.2014 in Crl.A.No.17 of 2014,
confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindivanam, in C.C.No.142 of 2013, dated 30.04.2014.
2. The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.142 of 2013, which
was filed against them in Cr.No.302 of 2013 charged against the 1st appellant
/ A1 under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 325, 506(ii) of IPC and the second
appellant/A2 was charged under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC,
based upon the complaint given by P.W.1.
3. After full trial, the trial Court convicted 1st petitioner /A1 under
Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo 3 months
Simple imprisonment and convicted the A2 / 2nd petitioner under Section 323
IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Simple
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
imprisonment. As against the above conviction and sentences, the accused
persons preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.17 of 2014 before the
learned No.I, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. On hearing
both sides, the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was
confirmed. As the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence properly
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this Criminal Revision
Petition before this Court.
4. The points for consideration in this Crl.R.C are as follows:
(i) Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that a
complaint was lodged after two days from the date of alleged occurrence?
(ii) Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate the material
contradiction with regard to the occurrence from the evidence of PW1 and
PW2 ?
(iii) Whether the Doctor's evidence was not properly appreciated by
the Courts below ?
Page No.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
5. The facts of the case are that, P.W.1 – Narayanan and both the
accused persons belong to Saram Village at Tindivanam Taluk. Both of them
are having own land adjacent to each other. Further, adjacent to the land of
P.W.1, there is a poromboke land and the same was enjoyed by him for more
than 30 years. On 19.06.2013 at about 4.45 p.m., both the accused cleaned the
poromboke land with the help of JCB vehicle and dumped the waste plant
material in the patta land of P.W.1, which was objected to by P.W.1., as a
result of which, A1 attacked P.W.1 with hands, on his mouth, due to which his
four teeths in upper Jaw and one teeth in Lower jaw fell down. A2 / Ramesh
scolded him with filthy language and attacked P.W.1 with Casuarina Stick on
his left hand, and thereby, PW.1 sustained grievous injuries and he was
admitted in the Govt. hospital, Tindivanam. Doctor – PW.7 who treated him,
noted 5 injuries in Ex.P3. P.W.8 Shanmugam SSI got information from the
hospital and obtained the complaint (Ex.P1) from P.W.1 and lodged FIR
(Ex.P4) in Crime No.302 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b),
323, 325, 506(ii) of IPC and prepared Observation Mahazar -Ex.P2 and
sketch Ex.P5, in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. Further, an investigation
Page No.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
was done by P.W.9 and charge sheet was also lodged against the petitioners /
accused persons.
6. To prove the charges framed against A1 and A2, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On considering the entire
evidence, the trial Court imposed 6 months simple imprisonment for A1 with
a fine for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and A2 was convicted for the
offence under Section 323 of IPC and imposed a fine with regard to other
charges and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
7. At the time of arguments, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that due to the attack made by A1,
P.W.1 lost his 4 teeths and the same was proved by the evidence of the
Doctor-P.W.7, vide AR copy marked as Ex.P.3 and another attack was made
by A2 with the help of Casuarina stick which was also proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision
petition as there are no merits.
Page No.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
8. But the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there
was no previous enmity between the parties, and both of them are having own
land adjacent to each other. There was only a wordy quarrel between them.
But, the appellants had not attacked P.W.1 as alleged by the prosecution. He
also pointed out that FIR was lodged only on 21.06.2013, but the alleged
occurrence was said to have occurred on 19.06.2013 itself and there was a
delay of two days in lodging the FIR, which was not properly explained by
the prosecution nor it was properly appreciated by Courts below.
9. It is true that there is a delay of two day by lodging the FIR from
the alleged date of occurrence. But the prosecution established that P.W.1 had
taken treatment in Tindivanam Government Hospital on 19.06.2013 and for
further treatment, he was referred to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. After
receiving information from JIPMER, P.W.8, received the complaint. The said
delay had occurred only due to the shifting of treatment by P.W.1, but, it is
not negligent on the part of P.W.1.
Page No.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
10. These facts are appreciated by both the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, which requires no interference by this Court. Therefore, the
objection raised by the appellants with regard to the delay of two days in
lodging the FIR, is unsustainable.
11.The another objection raised by the appellants is that the Doctor's
evidence was wrongly appreciated by the Courts belows, and convicted the
accused persons under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC, is erroneous. The
Doctor, who treated PW.1 was examined as P.W.7 and AR copy was also
marked as Ex.P.3 in Pg.9, Para.20 of the trial Court Judgment. The evidence
of P.W.7 is discussed and accordingly, P.W.7 Doctor stated that while he was
in duty on 19.06.2013 at about 5.20 p.m., P.W.1 came for treatment
accompanied by P.W.3 and she noticed that three teeths fell down and two
teeths were damaged in the upper jaw of P.W.1 and he also sustained
contusion, and so he was admitted as in-patient and then he was shifted to
JIPMER hospital. Further P.W.1 informed that he was attacked by two
persons with hands and stick.
Page No.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
12. Based upon the information from P.W.1, the same was recorded
in the Accident Register and the same was marked as Ex.A3, immediately
from the alleged occurrence i.e., within one hour P.W.1 was admitted in the
hospital and he also stated the reason for his injury and the same was also
recorded by P.W.7. Doctor. The earliest information received by P.W.7 proves
that due to the attack made by A1 and A2, P.W.1 sustained injuries and the
same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is no
contra evidence on the side of A1 and A2. The Doctor's evidence was rightly
appreciated by the First appellate Court as well as the trial Court, which does
not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the objections raised by
the accused with regard to the Doctor's evidence, is unsustainable.
13.Further, there is no material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 with regard to the occurrence. The points framed in this revision
are answered in the above terms.
14.Admittedly, there was no previous enmity and no previous case
pending against the accused persons. Considering the sentence imposed by
Page No.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
the Courts below, the sentence imposed on A1 is modified to two months
simple imprisonment and instead of fine under Section 357(3) and (4) of
Cr.P.C he is ordered to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to P.W.1., within 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order through trial Court
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindivanam, failing which he shall undergo one
year Simple imprisonment with fine as awarded by the Courts below is
confirmed and with regard to A2 fine imposed by the trial Court is confirmed.
15.With the above modification, Criminal Revision case is partly
allowed. Since A1 is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure
his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any and the period
of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be set off under Section 428
Cr.P.C.
02.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
rri
Page No.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1009 of 2014
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court No.I,
Dindivanam.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindivanam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.R.C. No.1009 of 2014
02.11.2021
Page No.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
