Madras High Court
Karthikeyan vs State Rep. By on 4 October, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Criminal Revision Case No.1052 of 2014
Karthikeyan .. Petitioner
Versus
State rep. By
The Station House Officer,
Brammadesam Police Station,
Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram Districtd.
Crime No.222 of 2012 .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction and sentence made in
C.C.No.112 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam
dated 29.11.2011 and confirmed in the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal
No.71 of 2013 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tindivanam dated 19.09.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkadeshan
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case
challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Tindivanam dated 29.11.2011, in C.C.No.112 of 2012, and confirming the
order passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam,
in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2013, dated 19.09.2014.
2. The petitioner herein who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.71
of 2013, accused/A1 in C.C.No.112 of 2012, has filed this revision
challenging concurrent finding of order of conviction and sentence passed by
both the 1st appellate Court and the trial Court.
3. The prosecution charged, against the petitioner / appellant under
Sections 324, and 506(ii) and on his mother /A2 under Sections 448 and
506(ii) of IPC. But the same was denied by A1 and A2 during trial. To prove
the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.7
were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
4. On appreciation of the oral evidence, the trial Court acquitted A2
from the charges and A1/ petitioner herein was convicted for the offences
under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to under go imprisonment of 6 months
and fine of Rs.5,000/- . Aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred an
appeal in Crl.A.No.71 of 2013 before the 1st Additional District and Sessions
Court, Tindivanam. Upon hearing both sides, the 1st appellate Court
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved
by the said order, he has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.
5. The point for consideration that arise is as to whether both the
appellate Court and the trial Court appreciated the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and convicted the 1st accused without considering the fact that
there was a delay of two days in filing the FIR and that there was previous
enmity between the parties?
6. The facts reveal that P.W.1 family and the accused family are
neighbours and there was previous enmity between them. On 31.03.2012 at
about 5.00 p.m.,while P.W.1 was nearing his house, the accused persons
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
trespassed into his house with wooden logs and attacked P.W.2 on his head,
thereby, he sustained grievous injuries. P.W.2 along with her wife went to the
Police Station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, P.W.2 was admitted in the
Government Hospital at Tindivanam and he was treated by P.W.6.-Doctor. At
the time of admission in the hospital, P.W.2 sustained 6 x 1 x 1 cm conduced
injuries on his head and in the frontal portion, 6 x 1 x 1 cm injury was found.
The Accident Register copy was marked as Ex.P6 and the wound certificate
was marked as Ex.P3.
7.To prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, eye-witnesses
P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined. Based upon their evidence as well as the
Doctor's evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused /A1 and acquitted
A2. The appellate Court also appreciated the prosecution evidence and
confirmed the trial Court's verdict.
8. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the Revision
petitioner submitted that both Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that
there was previous enmity between the parties and all the witnesses are close
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
relatives of the injured and there was no individual eye-witnesses on the side
of the prosecution, thereby the parties have not proved their case beyond
reasonable doubt, with sufficient material evidence. The learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that A1 and A2 came to the house of P.W.2
and reported about his son Akbar Ali, misbehaviour with A2's Rajavalli for
which they entered their house. But the same was denied by said accused, and
the matter was referred to Panchayat. Due to which, wordy quarrel arose
between them. But this court holds that the accused had not proved those
facts by adducing any independent witness, nor he took any steps to examine
the panchayats of their locality about the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the
defence alleged by A1 has not been proved.
9. On considering and perusing the entire records, it is admitted fact
that both the complainant family and accused family were neighbours and
there was small dispute between them, even prior to the alleged occurrence.
As per the prosecution case, A1 and A2 trespassed suddenly into the house of
the complainant and attacked P.W.2 with wooden logs, thereby he sustained
grievous injuries.
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
10.On the contrary, the prosecution had examined eye-witnesses P.W.1,
P.W.3 and P.W.4, in order to prove the occurrence and all the witnesses
categorically stated that, at the time of the occurrence, A1 attacked P.W.2 with
wooden log, thereby, he sustained injuries. Though they were close relatives,
but all were present in the house at the time of occurrence. Merely because
they were close relatives, their evidence need not be rejected. On the other
hand, the nature of the circumstances prevailed at the time of occurrence,
taken into consideration, it is an admitted fact that the occurrence happened
inside the house and naturally, the family members would have seen the
occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution examined three witnesses to prove the
occurrence. This fact was rightly appreciated by the Courts below, and hold
that the previous enmity between the parties and attack of A1 have also been
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
11.Admittedly, there was misunderstanding between A2 and the
complainant family and to safeguard his mother, A2 came to the occurrence
place. Considering those fact, and his subsequent conduct 6 months sentence
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
is imposed by the Courts below reduced to 3 months, and the period of
sentence already undergone during the judicial custody is ordered to be
set-off ( Fine amount already paid) and out of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,000/- is
ordered to be paid to P.W.2 by way of compensation. Other findings of the
Courts below are confirmed and sentence is modified as above.
12.Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
04.10.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes
rri
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court No.I,
Tindivanam.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Tindivanam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1052 of 2014
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
Crl.R.C. No.1052 of 2014
04.10.2021
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
