Madras High Court
Ramesh vs State Represented By on 4 August, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 04.08.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Mallur Police Station,
Salem District. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Salem in S.C. No.275 of 2012 by judgment dated 25.11.2014 confirmed by the
Appellate Court III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A. No.167 of
2014 by judgment dated 22.06.2015.
For Petitioner : Ms. Sumithra Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr. N.S.Suganthan
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
Page 1 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in
S.C. No.275 of 2012 by judgment dated 25.11.2014, confirmed by the III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A. No.167 of 2014 by judgment dated
22.06.2015.
2. The petitioner / appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.275 of 2012 on
the file of Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. He was
charged and tried for offence under Section 307 IPC (2 counts). The trial Court
has disbelieved the case of prosecution in so far as the offence of attempt to
commit murder on Arulmurugan (P.W.1) since he turned hostile, whereas, for the
offence of attempt to commit murder on Gowrishankar (P.W.7), considering the
evidence available, convicted the accused for offence under Section 326 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months. Being aggrieved by the said order of
conviction and sentence, an appeal in C.A. No.167 of 2014 has been preferred by
Page 2 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
the petitioner before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. Since
the lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial Court, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner / accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident
took place during a temple car procession. When the accused along with P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.7 were dancing in front of the deity, sudden fight erupted
and due to which the occurrence has taken place. Hence, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no intention to cause death or
grievous injury to anyone and the said incident has occurred only due to sudden
provocation and hence, seeks to set aside the order of conviction and sentence
imposed by the Courts below.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that on 22.02.2012 at about 09.30 p.m., when the temple car
procession was proceeding near the house of one Chinnathambi near
Poovayeeamman Koil, the petitioner / accused Ramesh along with P.W.1, P.W.3,
P.W.6, P.W.7 and others were dancing before the deity. At that time, the accused
Page 3 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
Ramesh quarreled with one Rajamanikam (P.W.6) who is the brother of
Arulmurugan (P.W.1). When P.W.1 tried to pacify them, the accused took a knife
and stabbed P.W.1 in his right hand saying 'get lost'. P.W.1 tried to avoid the
attack but the stab landed on his private part. Thereafter, the accused stabbed the
said Gowrishankar on his stomach causing him grievous injury. Both
Arulmurugan (P.W.1) and Gowrishankar (P.W.7) were taken to hospital for
treatment and they were treated as 'Inpatient' at Mohan Kumaramangalam Govt.
Hospital, Salem. Dr.Nakkiran (P.W.9) treated Arulmurugan (P.W.1) who was
brought to the hospital by one Iyyappan (P.W.5). Dr.Murugesan (P.W.10) treated
Gowrishankar (P.W.7) who was brought to the hospital by one Shankar.
Arulmurugan P.W.1 sustained a cut injury by 3x5x5 cm on his thigh near his
private part. The wound certificate of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P4 and the accident
register copy of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P5. Dr.Murugesan who examined
Gowrishankar found that due to the stab injury, the entire intestine of
Gowrishankar has been exposed and hence he was admitted as 'Inpatient' and
treated for the injury. On 08.03.2012, the said Gowrishankar (P.W.7) was
discharged from the hospital. The injury sustained by him was certified by the
Doctor as grievous. The accident register copy of P.W.7 was marked as Ex.P8.
Page 4 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that though P.W.1 to P.W.5
have not supported the case of prosecution in support of the overt act committed
by the accused, the evidence of Gowrishankar (P.W.7), who is one of the injured
witness, solely sufficient to convict the accused for offence under Section 326
IPC. The learned trial Court in view of the impeccable evidence placed by the
prosecution through the ocular evidence of the injured person, the medical
certificate issued by the Doctor who treated P.W.7 and the tell-tale evidence of the
scar shown to the learned Magistrate by the victim P.W.7, rightly convicted and
sentenced the petitioner / accused. Hence the same to be confirmed.
6. Heard Mrs.Sumithra Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Though the trial Court has framed charge for the offence of attempt to
murder punishable under Section 307 IPC (2 counts), one for Arulmurugan
(P.W.1) and another for Gowrishankar (P.W.7), causing hurt with knife on the
vital part of their body, with the intention to cause death, it is found that as far as
Page 5 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
the attack on Arulmurugan (P.W.1) is concerned, there is no sufficient evidence to
convict the accused. Whereas, regarding the attack on Gowrishankar, the trial
Court has taken note of the evidence as spoken by the injured (P.W.7), the Doctor
(P.W.10), the wound certificate (Ex.P7), the accident register copy (Ex.P8), the
weapon used to cause injury (M.O.1). The Doctor has certified that the injury
sustained by P.W.7 is of grievous in nature.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the fight arose
due to sudden provocation, the testimony of P.W.7 indicates otherwise. According
to the petitioner, the incident which took place around 09.30p.m., earlier on the
same day at about 12.00 p.m., P.W.8 received a phone call from Kiruba Shankar
and he threatened to damage the motor cycle of P.W.7. It was deposed by P.W.7
that he had also heard the voice of the accused. Therefore, at the time of temple
procession, when Gowrishankar saw the accused near the house of Chinnathambi,
he went towards him but the accused without any provocation, stabbed
Gowrishankar with the knife. This incident has been spoken by P.W.7 and the
same has been partly corroborated by Rajkamal (P.W.8).
Page 6 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
9. In his chief examination, P.W.8 contrary to P.W.7 evidence, had deposed
that the phone call from the accused was received by P.W.7 between 8.00 p.m. to
08.30 p.m. However, as far as the overt act of the accused, the evidence of P.W.7
is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8. Hence, this Court has no doubt that the
injury which is grievous in nature as mentioned in Ex.P7 was caused by the
accused by using a sharp knife (M.O.1). Through these evidences prosecution has
sufficiently proved that the accused voluntarily caused grievous injury to P.W.7
using the weapon M.O.1.
10. In view of the above, this Court upholds the conviction of the accused
under Section 326 IPC rendered by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower
appellate Court. As far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the injured and the accused belongs same village and that
they were friends only due to silly reasons, quarrel erupted and the aforesaid
incident has occurred.
Page 7 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
11. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner / accused, this Court
is of the view that some leniency may be shown on the accused with regard to
sentence. This Court, after careful consideration of the said submission and the
other attending circumstances, modifies the sentence imposed by the trial Court, as
follows.
“The petitioner / accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 18 months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six
months simple imprisonment.”
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.
04.08.2022
bkn
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Page 8 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
To:
1. The Inspector of Police,
Mallur Police Station,
Salem District.
2. The Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Salem.
3. The III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Salem.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Page 9 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.,
bkn
Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2015
04.08.2022
Page 10 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
