Maniaraj vs State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 19735 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      Dated : 27.09.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                  Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

                    Maniaraj                                                    ... Petitioner
                                                           Versus
                    State Represented by
                    The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                    Sangagiri Police Station,
                    Salem District.                                             ... Respondent
                    (Crime No.351 of 2010)

                           Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with Section
                    401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction dated
                    07.04.2015 made in C.A.No.40 of 2014, on the file of the III Additional
                    District Judge, Salem, confirming the order of conviction dated 28.02.2014
                    made in S.C.No.168 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
                    Sangagiri, Salem District, and to acquit the accused.


                                     For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar

                                     For Respondent      : Mr.S.Sugendran,
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                     ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against Judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Sangagiri in S.C.No.168 of 2012, which was confirmed by

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

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

the III Additional District Judge, Salem, in the judgment dated 07.04.2015

made in C.A.No.40 of 2014.

2.The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.351 of 2010,

for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC.,

against the petitioner herein. After completion of investigation, the

respondent/police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.1, Sangagiri and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2011.

Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned District & Sessions Judge,

Salem, where the case was taken on file in S.C.No.168 of 2012 and the same

was made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangagiri, for

disposal.

3.The Trial Court, after trial, convicted the petitioner herein, for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC. and sentenced to undergo two years

rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC., to

undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences

were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone was

ordered to be given set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

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

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

4.Challenging the trial court's Judgment of conviction and sentence,

the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Court,

Salem. The Principal Sessions Judge taken the appeal on the file in

C.A.No.40 of 2014 and made it over to the III-Additional District &

Sessions Judge for disposal. After analysing the entire materials on record,

the learned III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, confirmed the

Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

5.Now, challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court, confirming

the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner has preferred the

present revision case, before this court.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that all

the witnesses are interested witnesses and related witnesses. There was a

delay in filing the First Information Report as well as a delay in sending the

same to the court, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are

contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1/injured witness regarding

injuries and the injuries sustained by him. P.W.2 has stated that

petitioner/accused had inflicted three cut injuries with Machete (Aruval) on

his left shoulder, but the medical evidence shows that the victim sustained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

two cut injuries, which is a material contradiction and it goes to the root of

the case of the prosecution. Further, the Investigation Officer has not

recovered the bloodstain clothes for sending the same to the forensic

laboratory, to identify whether the blood in the clothes matches with the

blood of the de-facto complainant or not. Further, he submits that the

forensic report regarding the weapons is misconceived. The prosecution

failed to prove that the petitioner/accused has committed the charged

offences. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is necessary that the benefit of doubt should

have been extended to the petitioner. There are many contradictions and all

the witnesses are interested witnesses. Due to previous enmity and personal

motive between the appellant and P.W.1/victim, a false case has been

foisted against the petitioner by PW.1/victim before the respondent/police.

The police and the prosecution have not conducted fair investigation. The

Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence and did not conduct a

fair trial and wrongly convicted the petitioner, without any material

evidence. The appellate Court has also failed to re-appreciate the entire

evidence properly. There is perversity in re-appreciating the evidence, and it

warrants interference of this Court and the conviction and sentence passed

by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

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

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

7.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the

respondent/police would submit that PW.1 has clearly spoken about the

occurrence. P.W.2 is the eyewitness. P.W.9 is the doctor, who examined

P.W.1/victim and prepared the Accident register, wherein, PW.1 has clearly

stated that a known person attacked him, which was marked as Ex.P6.

P.W.10 is a Government Doctor, who reported about the two cut injuries

and sutures performed to P.W.1, in which also he stated that a known person

attacked him with a machete. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9 and

P.W.10, it is clear that the victim/P.W.1 sustained cut injuries with machete,

by the petitioner. While the petitioner attempted to attack P.W.1, he turned

aside. Therefore, the machete fell on his left shoulder, otherwise, it might

have fallen on his head. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

the evidence of P.W.1/injured witness, P.W.9 & P.W.10/Doctors' evidence,

and Wound Certificate/Ex.P7, it shows that there is no fracture injury.

Though he suffered the simple injury, the petitioner used a deadly weapon

viz., Machete. The Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner, for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC., and Section 506(ii) of IPC.,(2 counts).

There is no perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court and the appellate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

Court also rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the

judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Therefore,

the revision is liable to be dismissed.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent and also

perused the materials available on record.

9.This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot exercise

power of the Appellate Court and this Court, being a revisional Court,

cannot sit in the armchair of Appellate Court and re-assess the evidence and

substitute its views on findings of fact.

10.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an adjacent

landowner of P.W.1/victim. Due to the dispute of watering the land, P.W.1

and P.W.2 went to their land. At that time, the petitioner made a wordy

quarrel with them, and thereafter, left from that place. After some time, the

petitioner came back with Machete and attacked P.W.1., due to which,

P.W.1 sustained cut injuries. On the same day itself, P.W.1 was admitted in

the hospital and he gave a complaint before the respondent/police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

11.It is seen that initially the case was registered against the petitioner

under Section 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC., P.W.1 has very clearly stated

about the petitioner's attempt to attack with a machete, on his head, but he

turned aside, and therefore, he received a cut on his left shoulder, and

sustained two cut injuries. All are simple in nature, however, the petitioner

used a deadly weapon for causing injuries to P.W.1 & chosen the vital part

of the victim. P.W.1 was admitted on the same day in the hospital at 4.30

p.m., P.W.9/Doctor recorded the statement of P.W.1 and made entries in the

Accident register to the effect that a known person assaulted him with a

machete. P.W.9, who gave the first aid treatment to P.W.1, due to the non-

availability of sufficient facilities in that hospital, referred P.W.1 to the

Government Hospital, Erode, where P.W.10/Doctor examined and gave the

report that P.W.1 sustained two cut injuries for which sutures were made on

his left shoulder, though it is simple in nature. Further, X-ray was taken,

which reveals that there was no fracture. From the evidence of the P.W.1/

injured witness, medical evidence of P.W.9 & P.W.10/Doctors, Wound

certificate/Ex.P.7, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt.

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

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

12.Though the petitioner pointed out certain contradictions, no doubt

the contradictions are not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since they are

not material contradictions. Since the injured and the accused are known to

each other and there are previous motives between them, the

accused/petitioner attacked P.W.1/victim, thereby P.W.1 sustained injuries.

It is clear that P.W.1/injured witness has identified the accused and made a

complaint on the same day itself. Further, P.W.1 was admitted to the

hospital on the same day, on that day itself, P.W.9/Doctor has recorded the

victim's statement in the Accident Register, in which, P.W.1 has clearly

narrated that a known person attacked him. Therefore, on a combined

reading of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10, medical evidence, and the

wound certificate, it is very clear that the accused has caused the injuries to

P.W.1. Therefore, considering the injuries sustained by the P.W.1, the Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years rigorous

imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and three years

rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC.

13.The revision court cannot substitute its own reasons and its views

on findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, unless there is

perversity in appreciation of evidence by both the courts below, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

Revisional Court normally will not interfere with the findings of the Courts

below. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court does not find any

merit in the revision and there is no compelling circumstances to interfere

with the findings of the Courts below.

14.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by

confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts

below.

27.09.2021

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

pbl/klt

To

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sangagiri Police Station, Salem District.

2.The III Additional District Judge, Salem.

3.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangagiri, Salem District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

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

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

klt/pbl

Crl.R.C.No.435 of 2015

27.09.2021

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