Madras High Court
Vignesh vs State Rep.By on 21 October, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
Vignesh ... Petitioner
Vs
State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Samalpatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District
(Crime No.104 of 2018) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set side the order passed by the
Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Vacation Sessions
Judge), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in Crl.M.P.No.1324 of 2021 in
Crl.A.No.3 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to set aside the order
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Vacation Sessions
Judge), Krishnagiri, dismissing the petition filed for suspension of
sentence in Crl.M.P.No.1324 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.3 of 2021 dated
09.08.2021.
2.The facts of the case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 was
attacked by the petitioner on 30.06.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. with hammer,
caused injuries on her forehead and fingers and taken away 4 ½
sovereigns of Thaali chain and four lamps (Kuthuvilakku), thereafter,
tied her hand and pushed her inside the house and locked the door. On
hearing her alarm, the neighbors viz., PW2 to PW4 caught the petitioner
when he attempted to flee away in his bike, fell down, sustained injuries
and he was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, the defacto complainant
lodged a complaint. On receipt of the same, the respondent police
registered a case, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared rough sketch,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and after collecting the
materials and documents, filed charge sheet before the Court.
3.The trial Court examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs.P1 to
P14 and also produced MO1 to MO9. On conclusion of trial, the trial
Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the offence under
Section 451 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay the
said fine amount to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also
convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default to pay the said fine amount, he was sentenced to undergo
six months simple imprisonment. Thereafter, he was committed to prison,
against which, the petitioner had filed the appeal in Crl.A.No.3 of 2021
along with a petition for suspension of sentence in Crl.MP.No.52 of
2021. The lower Appellate Court, by order dated 20.05.2021, dismissed
the same. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.11736 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 26.07.2021,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
directed the lower Appellate Court to consider the suspension of sentence
petition afresh on merits and dispose of the same. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed another suspension of sentence petition in
Crl.MP.No.1324 of 2021 and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the
same, against which, the present petition.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner is doing textile business at Thiruppathur. PW1's brother
Mariappan, daughter Sathya married and settled in Thiruppathur, she
used to visit the petitioner's shop regularly, purchased articles and owes
some money to be paid. Further, the petitioner and the said Sathya
became friendly, which was misunderstood by PW1, who informed the
same to the husband of Sathya and there was some dispute. Thereafter,
the said Sathya was staying with PW1 and failed to return the money.
Hence, the petitioner had come there, sought return of money. At that
time, there was a wordy quarrel, the petitioner's presence in the house
was suspected, and the nearby residents of PWs 2 to 4 and others
assaulted the petitioner badly. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
treatment. This fact completely suppressed by the prosecution. The true
facts suppressed to project the petitioner as an offender. The Trial Court
failed to consider the same. He further submitted that all the witnesses
viz., PW1 to PW4 are interested witnesses hailing from the same
locality, and false case projected against the petitioner. PW1 in her
evidence did not identify MO7 and MO8, the weapon used in the
occurrence. There is a considerable amount of delay in lodging the
complaint and no explanation given. Further, PW1 to PW4 state that the
petitioner is known to them. Hence, the implication of the petitioner in
the above case for other reason is apparent. The weapon seized in this
case is not proved. Further, the articles MO1 to MO5 produced by PW1
herself. Thus, false implication of the petitioner is very much real. The
trial Court failed to consider any of these aspects. Further, the trial Court
on pre-conceived notion, convicted the accused, as could be seen from
the judgment in paragraph – 11, evidence of PW11 one Veerappan
extracted. This evidence pertains to one Veerappan, Doctor attached to
Government Hospital, Krishnagiri. The said Dr.Veerappan is not a
witness in this case and why his evidence extracted, no answer it proves
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
the fact that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidences in a proper
perspective. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to draw
adverse inference against prosecution for not investigating and producing
any material with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The
petitioner is running a textile shop. He has got no previous case against
him and no reason been given why at all the petitioner has to indulgence
in such offence. The friendship of the petitioner with the said Sathya
misconstrued and to keep petitioner away a false case has been
fabricated.
5.He further submitted that during the investigation, the petitioner
was a remand prisoner from 04.07.2018 to 23.08.2018. Further, after his
conviction from 20.11.2020, he is in prison for nearly a year. The
petitioner hails from a respectful family, got deep social roots. The
petitioner shall not evade justice and shall abide by any condition.
Hence, approached the bail application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in this
case, PW1 to PW4 are the occurrence witnesses, who clearly spoken
about the presence of the petitioner near the house of PW1. PW1 was
attacked, her Thali chain of 4 ½ sovereign and four lamps were taken
away from the petitioner's house, forcibly putting her under threat of life.
Thereafter, on her raising alarm, PW2 to PW4 who are neighbours caught
the petitioner. The petitioner attempted to flee at fell from his bike,
sustained injury. Both petitioner and PW1 were taken to the hospital and
given treatment. PW5 & 6 are the observation Mahazer witnesses, PW7
and 9 are the witnesses for the arrest, PW8 is the doctor, who treated
PW1 given accident register and wound certificate. The injuries
sustained by PW1 are confirmed. PW10 is the SI police who had
registered the FIR and conducted initial investigation. PW11 is the
investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and filed the
charge sheet. The trial Court, on the evidence of witness and materials
produced, had given a well reasoned judgment. If the petitioner's
sentence is suspended, he would evade justice and the appeal
proceedings would get stalled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
7.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is
seen that the petitioner is of young age, who is running a textile shop in
Thiruppathur. The injuries sustained by the petitioner, though spoken to
by PW1 to 4, the prosecution for the reason best known, not produced
any materials in this regard. The trial Court giving a explanation that
PW8 Doctor in his evidence states about the injuries sustained by the
petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no contemplary materials
produced. PW1 is the victim, whose statement highly contradictory. She
had given improvised , her evidence cannot be completely relied upon in
view of the contradictions. PWs2,3,4 though state to be present near
scene of occurrence, give different version and their evidence are
contradictory to each other. Further, the manner in which, the petitioner
was apprehended and also the injuries sustained, there are major
contradictions. PW 3 states that the brother of PW1 had come there and
thereafter, lodged a complaint. For the reason best known, brother of
PW1 not examined in this case. PWs2 & 4 state that the petitioner fell
from the bike, PW3 states that the accused sustained injuries while
attempting to run away. PW5 & 6 the witness of observation mahazer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
except for identifying their signature, they have not stated anything more.
PW 7 & 9 the witnesses for the arrest, there is no recovery thereof. PW8
doctor states about the injuries of PW1, which is simple in nature. The
injuries does not confirm to the manner in which PW1 had given her
version, which is highly dramatic. PW10 is the Sub Inspector of Police,
who registered the case, PW11 is the investigating officer. Further, from
the perusal of the trial Court judgment as pointed out by the counsel for
the petitioner, paragraph 11, is completely out of context and no way
connected to the above case. Further, in this case, the recovery highly
doubtful. Inquiries does not confirm to the ocular evidence. Further, the
petitioner got no bad antecedent, has got deep social roots, residing with
his family, the petitioner already confined in prison for more than one
year. The appeal filed is a statutory appeal and it might take some time to
be taken for final hearing.
8. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to suspend the
sentence grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal original
petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
9. In view of the same, the Substantive Sentence of Imprisonment
imposed on the petitioner alone is suspended till the disposal of the
appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition
that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction
of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.
10. Further, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial
Court on the first working day of every English month at 10.30 a.m.,
until disposal of the criminal appeal.
Index: Yes/No 21.10.2021
Internet: Yes/No
sms
Note: Issue order copy on 25.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
To
1.State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Samalpatti Police Station,
Krishnagiri District, (Crime No.104 of 2018)
2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
(Vacation Sessions Judge),
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
sms
CRL.O.P.No.16440 of 2021
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
