Magadevan vs State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 8472 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 22.04.2022

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

                     1.Magadevan
                     2.Nirmala
                     3.Ravi                                                  ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs.


                     State rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Mangadu Police Station,
                     Kancheepuram District.
                     [Crime No.728 of 2006]                                  ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the judgment
                     of the learned Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram made in C.A.No.8 of 2014
                     dated 06.07.2016 partly modifying the judgment passed by the learned
                     District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram
                     District on 10.06.2014 in C.C.No.328 of 2008.
                                         For Petitioners    :    Mr.S.Shinu
                                         For Respondent     :    Mr.A.Damodaran
                                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                     1/10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016


                                                             ORDER

The petitioners, who are A2 to A4 in C.C.No.328 of 2008 were

convicted by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Sriperumbudur by judgment dated 10.06.2014 and sentenced them to

undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341

IPC and three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section

326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo one week

simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Trial Court,

the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge in C.A.No.8 of

2014. The learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram by

judgment dated 06.07.2016 confirmed the conviction of the petitioners

under Section 341 IPC and acquitted the petitioners for the offence under

Section 326 IPC and confirmed the conviction of A1 for the offence under

Section 326 IPC. Against which, the petitioners/A2 to A4 preferred this

revision petition.

2.The gist of the case is that on 12.12.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.1

Praveen Kumar was at his home, at that time, all the accused picked up

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

quarrel with Praveen Kumar and P.W.2/Ezhilarasu, his brother. A2 to A4

caught hold of P.W.2, A1 alleged to have attacked P.W.2 using blade on his

neck, caused abrasions and contusions. Therefore, A1 to A4 were charged

for the offence under Sections 341 and 326 IPC. During the trial, P.W.1 to

P.W.9 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and M.O.1 marked. On the side of the

defence, no witnesses examined and no documents marked. The Trial Court

on conclusion of trial convicted the petitioners which was confirmed by the

Lower Appellate court with modification as stated above.

3.The contention of the petitioner is that in this case P.W.1 to P.W.4

hails from the same family, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are brothers, P.W.3 and

P.W.4 are their parents, mother and father. The alleged occurrence is said to

have taken place outside the house but no public witness examined. P.W.3

and P.W.4 admit that P.W.3 was in the hospital at the time of occurrence,

she reached home later and P.W.4 was on duty in his Company. P.W.1

states that he was at home, at that time, A1 to A4 barged into his house,

enquired about his father, picked up quarrel, A2 to A4 caught hold of

P.W.2, his brother and A1, a milk vendor in that area, slashed P.W.2's neck

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

with M.O.1/blade. Thereafter, the accused beaten both P.W.1 and P.W.2

and ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 admits that at the time of

occurrence, there were around 15 to 20 persons and none of them were

examined as witness. The Trial Court on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and

P.W.8/Doctor convicted the accused. It is submitted that the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are highly artificial and exaggerated. P.W.1 though states

that he saw A1 inflicting cut injury on the neck of P.W.2 which is concurred

by P.W.2. From the complaint, there is nothing to show there was any slash

injury inflicted by A1. Further, in the Accident Register/Ex.P5 there is no

recording of any usage of blade, inflicting cut injury. It is recorded that

there is only abrasions and contusions. In the Accident Register, it is clearly

mentioned that the assault was by using hands.

4.P.W.1 to P.W.3 admit that on the previous day of the attack, there

was a local residents' meeting, A1 attended the meeting which was

questioned by P.W.4 and there was a wordy altercation between them. A1

is the milk vendor in that area, after the wordy quarrel A1 stopped delivery

of milk to P.W.4's house, which was questioned and there was some

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

misunderstanding between them. It is the specific case of the accused that

P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with their friends were passing lucid comments

against A3 whenever she was seen near their house, which was questioned,

which leads to wordy altercation and there was exchange of blows. The

Investigating Officer failed to look into this complaint. Further, P.W.1 and

P.W.2 admit that their friend Aravind was a press reporter and due to his

influence, false complaint was lodged against the petitioners. Hence, he

prayed for quashing of the complaint.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case

P.W.1 lodged the complaint, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were alone at home, at that

time, the petitioners and other accused entered into their house, picked up

quarrel and assaulted them. A2 to A4 caught hold of P.W.2, A1 took a

blade/M.O.1 and inflicted a slash injury on the neck of P.W.2. Since the

other residents came there, the accused left the place. Thereafter, P.W.1

took P.W.2 to Shri Ramachandra Hospital immediately, P.W.8/Doctor gave

him treatment and issued Accident Register/Ex.P5. Further P.W.3 and

P.W.4 confirmed about P.W.2 going to the hospital and taking treatment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

P.W.5 is the witness for the observation mahazar, P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the

witnesses for arrest and confession of the accused, P.W.8 is the Casualty

Doctor and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. On the evidence of these

witnesses and the materials produced, the Trial Court relying on the

evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.8 rightly convicted the petitioners. The

Lower Appellate Court confirmed the conviction. Hence, he prayed for

dismissal of this revision petition.

6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials

placed before this Court, it is seen that P.W.1 to P.W.4 hail from one family,

P.W.3 and P.W.4 not witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were

present in the house, at that time, the petitioners along with A1 said to have

entered into their house, enquired about their father/P.W.4 and there was a

wordy altercation. P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that his brother/P.W.2

was caught hold by A2 to A4, at that time, A1 assaulted him and inflicted

cut injury in his neck using M.O.1/blade. From Ex.P5/Accident Register, it

is seen that it is recorded as assault using hands, there is only abrasions and

contusions and there is no slash or cut injury. The wound certificate was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

given on the reverse side of the Accident Register as grievous injury and

there is no reference as to for what reason it was recorded as grievous injury.

Further P.W.8 is not the Doctor who treated the injured. Further, he had not

joined the Hospital when Accident Register and Wound Certificate issued.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 326 IPC for the

reason that the injury on the neck of P.W.2 endangers the life, but from the

Accident Register/Ex.P5 it is seen that there is no cut injury found in the

neck, that to, using M.O.1/blade. The material object M.O.1 is commonly

available blade, nothing significant. Further, in this case except P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and P.W.5, the other witnesses not supported the case of the

prosecution. Thus, the arrest, confession and recovery not proved. P.W.8

was projected as the Doctor who treated P.W.2 and issued Accident

Register/Ex.P5. P.W.8 admits that Ex.P5 was issued in the year 2006, he

joined the Hospital only in the year 2009, the person who treated P.W.2 is

one Dr.Balu who had gone abroad, hence projection of P.W.8 familiar with

signature and handwriting of Dr.Balu in Ex.P5 cannot be accepted. Hence,

Ex.P5/Accident Register is not proved in the manner known to law which

cannot be considered. Added to it, P.W.1 admits that there were around 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

to 20 persons at the time of occurrence but none of them were examined.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 evidence are with exaggeration as could be seen from

Ex.P5 and the cut injury on P.W.2's neck is a false version, highly

contradictory. Both the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 given a motivated and

contradictory statement against the accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1

and P.W.2 are exaggerated and unbelievable. It is seen P.W.8 joined the

hospital years later after the occurrence and not worked with Dr.Balu, hence

his evidence cannot be considered.

7.In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioners.

Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this revision petition not only against

the petitioners/A2 to A4 even against the other accused/A1.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the

first petitioner/A2 passed away on 08.09.2018.

9.In the result, the judgment dated 10.06.2014 made in C.C No.328

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram which was partly modified by the judgment

dated 06.07.2016 made in C.A.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the learned

Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram are set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal

Revision Petition is allowed. The petitioners and A1 are acquitted of all the

charges levelled against them.

22.04.2022 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse

To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District

2.The Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram.

3.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Crl.R.C.No.1038 of 2016

22.04.2022

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