Venkatesan vs State Rep By
2021 Latest Caselaw 22946 Mad

                                                                             Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 Dated : 24.11.2021

                                                       CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

                     Venkatesan                                               .. appellant

                                                          Vs.
                     State rep by
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Andimadam Police Station,
                     Andimadam.                                               .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of
                     Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.36 of 2013 on
                     the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum -Chief Judicial
                     Magistrate, Ariyalur and to set aside the order of convicting the
                     Appellant to undergo 10 years passed in S.C.No.36 of 2013 dated
                     03.02.2015.

                                     For appellant    :     Mr.P.Saravanan
                                     For Respondent   :     Mr.A.Gopinath
                                                            Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                      JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the

judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur in S.C.No.36 of 2013.

2. The accused is the brother of the defacto complainant,

who was examined as PW.1. The case of the prosecution is that on

05.02.2012, the accused had an altercation with the complainant in view

of some property claim. On the said day at about 12.00 mid night, when

PW.1 sleeping was along with her mother PW.2, the accused came to the

house and set the house on fire, thereby damaged the valuable property to

the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. On the complaint given by the PW.1, a case

was registered in Crime.No.55 of 2012 by Andimadam police for the

offence under Section 436 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the

Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused under

Section 436 of IPC. After the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.27 of

2013, it was committed to the Sessions Court for trial by observing due

legal mandates. The case was assigned to the file of the Additional

Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur for trial. The trial

Court framed charges under Section 436 of IPC and questioned the

accused. Since the the accused denied his involvement in the crime, the

trial was conducted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

3. Before the trial Court, on the side of prosecution, 10

witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P4. However, on the side of the defence, no witness has been

examined and no documents have been marked.

4. After conclusion of the trial and after considering the

materials on record, the learned trial Judge has found the accused guilty

for the offence under Section 436 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo

10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in

default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. Aggrieved over

that, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted the fairness

of the finding of the Courts below, but his only endeavour is to get a

reduction of punishment.

6. Taking into consideration of the settlement of the dispute

between the accused and his sister / PW.1-defacto complainant/Ambiga

and the affidavit filed in this regard and also considering the fact that the

accused has already undergone 6 ½ years of Rigorous Imprisonment, I

feel some lenience may be shown in the punishment. Despite the matter

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

was compromised, the offence under which the accused was convicted

falls under the category of non compoundable offence. It is not

compoundable even with the permission of the Court.

7. In such circumstances, taking into consideration of the

future harmony that should prevail in the family of the defacto

complainant and the accused and also to prevent any further offence. It is

appropriate to consider the present circumstances in order to reduce the

punishment. The accused had almost undergone 2/3rd of the sentence

passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. In view of that, this appeal is partly allowed and the

judgment of the Sessions Court is modified to the extent that the accused

is found guilty and sentenced to undergo the punishment of 7 years R.I.

Fine already imposed and paid, amount already paid is retained.

24.11.2021 (R.N.M.J) rpl

To

1.The Additional District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

2.The Inspector of Police, Andimadam Police Station, Andimadam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

R.N. MANJULA, J.

rpl

Crl.A.No.407 of 2017

24.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis