Madras High Court
Sundarrajan vs State Rep. By on 25 November, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
Sundarrajan .. Petitioner
Versus
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police.
Tiruvenkadu Police Station,
Nagaipattinam District.
(Crime No.260 of 2003) .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed in
C.A.No.125 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Nagaipattinam, confirming the judgment dated 09.12.2010 passed in
S.C.No.76 of 2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai and
set aside the same by allowing the above Crl.R.C.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Raja
for M/s. Om Sai Ram Associate
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Proposed
Respondents 2 to 4: Mrs.G.Dhanalakshmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused,
Sundarrajan, against the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mayiladuthurai dated 09.12.2010 convicting him for the offences under
Sections 324 (2 counts) and 307 of Indian Penal Code; imposing a sentence of
five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of Indian
Penal Code and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo six
months Rigorous Imprisonment; imposing a punishment of one year Rigorous
Imprisonment for each count for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal
Code and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, thereby, confirmed the same by judgment dated
15.12.2014 in C.A.No.125 of 2010.
2. When the Criminal Revision came up for hearing today, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner straightaway took this Court as to the nature of the
allegations i.e., this a conflict which had arisen in relation to drawal of water
from tap and in a fit of anger, the incident had taken place and the parties are
neighbours and they are also closely related to each other. He would draw my
attention that subsequent to the case, both sides are living peacefully and there
is no any conflict between both of them and as a matter of fact, the injured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
witnesses have filed an affidavit before this Court on 21.06.2021, stating that
the issue has been compromised between them and they are living peacefully
and the injured are having cordial relationship with the accused.
Mr.G.S.Dhanalakshmi, learned Counsel also appears on behalf of the injured
witness and filed the affidavit before this Court.
3. Mr.S.T.Raja, learned Counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit
that since this is an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code,
straightaway this Court cannot record the compromise or compound the matter.
The matter is no longer res integra and has been dealt with Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, in a case between Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1,
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“12. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC is not a
compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that
no offence shall be compounded if it is not
compoundable under the Code. At the same time,
however, while dealing with such matters, this
Court may take into account a relevant and
important consideration about compromise
between the parties for the purpose of reduction
of sentence.
....
1 (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 667
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
14. In our considered opinion, it would not be
appropriate to order compounding of an offence
not compoundable under the Code ignoring and
keeping aside statutory provisions. In our
judgment, however, limited submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant deserves
consideration that while imposing substantive
sentence, the factum of compromise between the
parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which
the Court may keep in mind.”
4. Therefore, he would submit that this Court can take into consideration
of the affidavit filed by both the petitioner/accused as well as the injured
witnesses and consider the same and for imposing a proper sentence, consider
the nature of the crime.
5. Heard Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
for the respondent and Mrs.G.S.Dhanalakshmi, learned Counsel for the injured
persons.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that
this is the case, under Section 307 of I.P.C, where five years of Rigorous
Imprisonment has been imposed, such assault was by using an Aruval. But,
however, he would confirm that there has been no subsequent altercations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
between the parties and the petitioner does not have bad antecedents.
7. Now, considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, considering the submissions made by the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side), and the learned counsel for the injured witnesses;
considering the nature of conflict i.e., conflict having arisen in the context of
drawal of tap water between the womenfolk of both houses being neighbours
and relatives; the attack taking place due to quarel in a fit of anger; considering
the fact that the petitioner has since expressed remorse; and has truly shown
character of reformation since there are no altercations and both neighbours
having cordial relationship for these long number of years(18 years), I am
inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence
under Section 324 as well as 307 of I.P.C.
8. Considering the fact the occurrence happened in the year 2003,
considering the fact that the petitioner/accused was in jail for 39 days and he
has already paid fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court, the sentence is
modified as the period already undergone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
9. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed to the extent as indicated
above. In view of the disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case, since the
impleading petition in M.P.No.1 of 2014 is unnecessary, the same is closed.
25.11.2021
Index : yes/no
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
grs
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagaipattinam.
2.The Assistant Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police.
Tiruvenkadu Police Station,
Nagaipattinam District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2015
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
