Madras High Court
Selvam vs The State on 8 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C (MD)No.50 of 2017
1.Selvam
2.Kumaresan
3.Vadivel : Petitioners
Vs.
The State
By the Inspector of Police,
Natham Police Station,
Dindigul Distirct. : Respondent
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment made in
C.A.No.58 of 2012 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dindigul,
dated 10.01.2017 modifying the judgment made in S.C.No.48 of 2006 by
the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Dindigul, dated 06.08.2012.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Counsel for Government of
Tamil Nadu (crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to check the
correctness of the judgment dated 10.01.2017 made in C.A.No.58 of 2012
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul,
confirming the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.48 of 2006 on the
file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, dated 06.08.2012.
2.The revision petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in
S.C.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court,
Dindigul. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioners along with other
six accused stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 147,
148, 323, 324 and 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. After full fledged trial, the learned
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, came to the conclusion that
the accused Nos.1 to 3 were found guilty under Section 307 of I.P.C and
accordingly, each of the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced
to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
Further, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty under Section 324 of
I.P.C and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
3.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 herein preferred an appeal in C.A.No.58 of
2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. By
judgment dated 10.01.2017, the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Dindigul, partly allowed the appeal and came to the conclusion that
the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty under Section 324 of I.PC (2
counts) and the accused No.3 was found guilty under Section 324 of I.P.C.
In view of the above, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for each counts. The sentences
were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said findings, the
petitioners are before this Court with this criminal revision.
4.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 30.01.1999 around 5.30 pm due to the result of wordy
altercation, the accused Nos.1 to 3 herein along with other accused came to
the village of PW1-Karuppaiah and during the time of occurrence, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
accused Selvam attacked PW1-Karuppaiah on his head. Further, when at
the time the second accused Kumaresan attempted to attack PW1, the aruval
cut the left elbow of P.W1. Further, in the course of same transaction, the
third accused Vadivel attack PW1 and caused injury on his right finger.
When at the time, PW2 attempted to resolve the issue, both A1 and A2
attacked him and thereby, PW2 also sustained injury. Immediately, after the
occurrence, they rushed into the police station, wherein PW1 gave a
statement before PW9-Balasubramanian, the then Inspector of Police,
Natham. On receipt of the said statement, PW9 registered the case against
the accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 of I.P.C. The statement
given by PW1 and FIR prepared by PW9 were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P5
respectively.
(ii) In the meantime, after giving statement before PW9, both of
them went to the hospital, wherein PW6-Dr.Maru.Nagammal around 7.30
pm examined PW2 and found the following injuries:-
1. A cut injury in the size of 3cmx1.5cmx1cm found on
the scalp 3 cm behind the right ear.
2. A cut injury in the size of 3cmx1cmx1.25cm on the
right sholulder. Around the said injury, there was contusion in
the size of 5cmx4cm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3.There was a multiple abrasion on his back side in
the size of 5cm x .25 cm, 6cm x .25cm, 3x .25cm
4.Loss of right scapula
5. There was an abrasion in the size of 1cm x 1cm in
the right knee.
According to her, the injuries sustained by PW2 is grievous in
nature. Similarly, on the same day, PW6 examined PW1 and found the
following injury:-
1.A cut injury in the size of 8cm x 1.5cm x1cm on the
scalp region
2. A cut injury in the size of 5cm x 1cm x1cm on the
left forehead
3. A cut injury on the left upper hand in the size of
5cm x 3cm x1cm
4. A cut injury on the right upper hand 7cm x 1cm x.
25cm
5. A cut injury on the right back side in the size of
2cm x 1cm x.25cm
6. There was a contusion on the left back side in the
size of 6cm x 3cm
7. There was an abrasion in the left upper hand in
the size of 2cm x 1cm around the said injury there was a
contusion in the size of 5 cm x 5 cm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
The above said injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature. In this
regard, PW6 issued Accident Register Copies under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3
respectively.
(iii) After registration of FIR, PW9 took up the same for
investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation
mahazar under Ex.P4. He has drawn the rough sketch and the same has
been marked as Ex.P6. He examined the witnesses and recorded their
statements. After concluding the investigation, he came to the positive
conclusion that all the accused are liable to be convicted under Sections
147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC. He filed the final report accordingly.
5.From the above materials, the learned trial Judge framed the
charges against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 r/w
Section 149 of I.P.C. All the accused denied the charge and opted for trial.
Therefore, the accused was put on trial.
6.During the course of trial proceedings, in order to prove their
case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined
as PW1 to PW9 and 6 documents were exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.Out of the above said witnesses, PW1-Karupaiah, who is the
defacto complainant/injured speaks about the occurrence as during the
relevant point of time, due to the result of wordy altercation, the accused
Nos.1 to 3 came to his village along with other accused, wherein the first
accused by using the aruval attacked him and caused injury on his head, left
and right hands.
(ii) PW2-Ranjthkumar, an another injured, spoken about the
occurrence as during the relevant point of time accused Nos.1 to 3 along
with other accused came to the occurrence place, wherein the accused Nos.1
and 2 by using aruval attacked him on his head and right shoulder.
(iii) PW3-Thangam deposes that during the time of occurrence,
the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked PW1 and PW2 and caused injury. PW4-
Palanisamy and PW5-Sivakumar claims that on the date of occurrence,
when at the time they were returned to their house, they saw the injured i.e.,
PW1 and PW2, brought them to the hospital wherein they were admitted as
in-patients.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(iv) PW6-Dr.Nagammal attached with Government Hospital,
Natham, gave evidence as after the occurrence on 30.01.1999 around 7.30
pm, she examined the injured and after giving treatment, she issued
Accident Register copy stating that PW1 sustained simple injury and PW2
sustained grievous injury. PW7-Selvam, who was working as a car driver
claims that during the relevant point of time, in view of the request made by
PW4 and PW5, through his car he brought the injured to Natham Police
station.
(v) PW-8-Natarajan alleged witness cited in the observation
mahazar has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, he was
treated as hostile witness. PW-9 the then Inspector of Police, Natham
Police station, gave evidence in respect to the statement given by PW1,
registration of the case, examination of witnesses and about filing of final
report.
8.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the same as false.
However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any
document on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9.Having considered all the above materials, the learned Principal
Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, came to conclusion that the accused
Nos.1 to 3 were found guilty under Section 307 of IPC and the accused Nos.
1 and 2 were also found guilty under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as
stated in paragraph No.2 of this judgment. In the appeal preferred by the
accused, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dindigul, partly
allowed the appeal and convicted the appellants under Section 324 of IPC
alone. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioners are before this Court with this revision case.
10.I have heard Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side) appearing for the state and also perused the records carefully.
11.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend
that the evidence given by prosecution witnesses are having lot of
contradictions. In respect to the injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2, the
Doctor, who treated them, gave contradictory evidence. Further, the alleged
weapon used by the accused is not recovered and produced before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Court. Therefore, the said lapses found in the case of the prosecution shows
that the accused are not guilty for the charge under Section 324 of IPC.
12.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side)
appearing for the State would contend that after twelve years from the date
of occurrence, PW1 and PW2 gave evidence before the trial Court and
therefore, it is natural on their part to give evidence with minor
contradictions. In otherwise, in respect to the injury sustained, the evidence
given by the Medical Officer is in support of the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was material contradiction available
in the case of the prosecution and therefore, interference of this Court in the
findings arrived at by the trial Court does not require.
13.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side.
14.The case of the prosecution is that during the relevant point of
time, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 by using aruval attacked
PW1 and caused injury on his head and left and right hands and in his back
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
side. In this regard, PW1, who is one of the injured, gave evidence as
during the relevant point of time, all the accused in this case came to his
village wherein accused Nos.1 to 3 by using aruval cut him on his head, left
and right hands. In the wound certificate pertains to PW1 as well as the
evidence given by the Doctor, who treated PW1, is in correspondence with
the evidence given by PW1 as there was injury found on the head, right and
left hands of PW1. Similarly, PW2 gave evidence as during the time of
occurrence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 came along with other accused
wherein the first and second accused by using aruval attacked him on his
head and right shoulder. The said evidence is also in support of the
evidence given by the Doctor, who treated him. In the said circumstances,
the evidence given by Doctor would reflect that the injury sustained by PW2
is grievous in nature.
15.On the other hand, being the reason that the weapon alleged to
be used at the time of occurrence has not been recovered by the police
officer and in view of the above, the First Appellate Court came to the
conclusion that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were guilty under Section 324 of IPC
and not 307 of IPC. The other witnesses examined on the side of the
prosecution is also in support of the evidence given by PW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
16.Now, on considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, it is true in respect to the
attack made by the accused, some discrepancy is there. The evidence given
by them is having some discrepancy in respect to the place on which the
accused assaulted. Therefore, it would necessary to decide whether the
said discrepancy are sufficient to hold that the case of the prosecution is
false one.
17.In this regard, on going through the other circumstances,
during the time of occurrence along with accused number of persons were
assembled together and committed the offence. Further, the prosecution
witnesses gave evidence before the trial Court after 12 years. Therefore, it is
possible to give evidence with minor discrepancy. In general Rule, on
minor discrepancy, overmuch importance cannot be attached. Even in
criminal trial where the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, omissions and contradiction in the evidence of witnesses is not fatal
to the prosecution case when they are on minor facts, which do not go to the
root of the matter. Minor discrepancy guarantees that the witnesses are not
tutored. The very fact that there are some discrepancies instead of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
diminishing the worth of evidence gives it a stamp of genuineness. Merely
because the witnesses have deposed with consistency, it cannot be said that
they deposed like parrots and their evidence is devoid of naturalness.
18.Here it is the case, in respect to the person, who attacked them,
the evidences of PW1 and PW2, is found that there is no contradictions.
Further, the said evidence given by PW1 and PW2 found reliable and
inspired the confidence of this Court and also the evidence given by PW1
and PW2 is corroborated through the evidence given by the Medical
Officer. In the said circumstances, immediately after the occurrence, both
injured went to the police station and give statement as during the relevant
point of time the accused herein along with others attacked them. In the
statement itself the name of the accused is mentioned. Therefore, the reason
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is
not at all having any merits to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The
First Appellate Court only after considering the motive and other
circumstances, convicted the accused under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore,
I am of the opinion that there is no perversity or gross-justice found in the
judgment rendered by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
19.In this occasion, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners would submit that while at the time, the alleged occurrence had
happened all the accused are having the age around 20 years. Now, they are
attained 42 years and had minor children. Therefore, convicting them for
the period of two years, would cause much prejudice in their family life and
in the Society. On this way, he prays to show some leniency in the
conviction awarded by the First Appellate Court.
20.On considering the said submission with relevant records, it is
true the alleged occurrence had happened on 31.01.1999. Thereafter, the
trial Court had disposed the Sessions Case on 06.08.2012 and the First
Appellate Court disposed the appeal on 10.01.2017. Therefore, for the past
18 years the accused herein are facing this case. Considering these
circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to
modify the sentence as follows:-
In respect to the offence under Section 324 of IPC (two
counts), each of the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo
two months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
for each count, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
weeks and as far as the third accused, he has been convicted
under Section 324 of IPC, sentenced to undergo two months
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,
to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The sentences are
directed to run concurrently. The total fine amount of Rs.50,000/-
should be paid to the victims as compensation in terms of Section
357 of Cr.PC. It is further ordered that the trial Court is disbursed
a sum of Rs.20,000/- to P.W1 and a sum of Rs.30,000/- to PW2 as
compensation. The period of imprisonment already undergone by
the revision petitioner shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
21.In view of the above modifications, this Criminal Revision
Case is partly allowed.
08.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To:-
1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Natham Police Station,
Dindigul Distirct.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
cp
Crl.RC (MD)No.50 of 2017
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
