Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
G 6, Cheyyur Police Station,
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the judgement dated 21.03.2016 in C.A.No.57 of
2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu,
modifying the order in S.C.No.137 of 2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Court, Maduranthakam, set aside the same, acquit the accused and allow the
above revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Deivanandam
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the judgment
of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, dated 21.03.2016 passed
in C.A.No.57 of 2009, by which the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
Judge, Maduranthakam, dated 17.09.2009 passed in S.C.No.137 of 2009, was
modified in respect of the sentence alone.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.11.2005 at about 04.00 p.m.,
when P.W.1 - S.Ramakrishnan/victim was having tea at the tea shop of P.W.5 -
Subramaniam, the accused came there and sprinkled chilli powder on his face
and attacked him with a knife over his left cheek and ears, right and left side of
his abdomen and on his back by telling that he would do away with him and
inflicted serious injuries knowing pretty well that would cause the death of the
victim and thereby, committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC. Thereafter,
the victim was taken to hospital by P.W.2 - Jayaseelan to the Government
Medical College Hospital, Chengalpet; P.W.10 – SAR Police went to the
hospital and obtained the complaint statement of P.W.1; on the next day at about
3.30 a.m, when P.W.1 was under treatment, he registered a case in Crime
No.517 of 2005 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC in Cheyyur Police
Station.
2.1 P.W.11 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of
occurrence, prepared observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
witnesses; he also examined the witnesses and recorded their statement;
thereafter, he arrested the accused on 22.11.2005 at about 1 p.m; he recorded the
confession statement of the accused in the presence of the witnesses and
recovered M.O.1 - knife on the basis of his confession under seizure mahazar in
the presence of witnesses; he also enquired the doctor who registered the
Accident Register and the doctor who performed surgery and had also given the
wound certificate for P.W.1. After completing his investigation, he filed a charge
sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
3. Thereafter, the case was taken on file by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Maduranthakam in PRC.No.6 of 2006; after furnishing the copies of
the charge sheet to the accused and observing all legal mandates, the case was
committed to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and
after the case was taken on file, it was assigned to the file of the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Maduranthakam for trial. When the accused was
questioned, he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial was
conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
4. During the course of the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 11
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11, 8 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P8 and one material object was marked as M.O.1. When the
incriminating materials surfaced in the evidence of the complainant was put to the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same. On the side of
the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
5. After concluding the trial and on being satisfied with the materials
available on records, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the
accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted and sentenced him
to undergo 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed with a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment. The
accused challenged the above judgment by preferring the appeal in C.A.No.57 of
2009 before the Additional District Sessions Court, Chengalpattu and the same
was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner/accused has filed this present
Revision Case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent State.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the motive
is attributed against the accused in the complaint given by P.W.1, the same was
not spoken in his evidence; P.W.1 could not have seen the person who had
attacked him since he has stated that chilli powder was sprinkled on his eyes;
there is a delay in registering the F.I.R.; contradictions are found in the evidence
of P.W.1 and F.I.R. with regard to time during which the complaint was given;
the arrest, confession and recovery are not done in the manner as stated by the
prosecution; the doctors' evidence does not corelate to the injuries alleged to
have been sustained in the occurrence; the learned trial Judge and the Appellate
Judge had given undue credence to the evidence of P.W.1 and found the accused
guilty; hence, this Revision Case should be allowed.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State
submitted that the injured witness had spoken clearly about the occurrence and
P.W.2 has corroborated; immediately after occurrence, P.W.2 took P.W.1 to the
hospital; the evidence of the doctor who wrote the Accident Register, the doctor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
who performed surgery on P.W.1 and the doctor who had given wound
certificate have also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 as such. The delay in
contradiction as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not fatal
to the case of the prosecution in the circumstances of the case. P.W.1 was
attacked so violently to the extent of expelling his intestine and hence, it is right
for the Courts below to convict the accused and hence, this Revision Case has to
be dismissed.
9. Point for consideration :-
Whether the finding of the guilt of the accused for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, based on the
materials available on record is fair and proper?
10. It is seen from the complaint statement given by P.W.1 that he is a
fortune teller and the accused had suspicion over him that he had done some
black magic and only because of that, his brother Kannan had died 10 years ago
and his mother had also died four days before the occurrence. It is further
alleged that on the day of occurrence, the accused had attacked P.W.1 only with
the previous motive and by telling that he would do away him, but in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
evidence of P.W.1, nothing is stated about the motive or the previous enmity the
accused is said to have had with P.W.1.
11. By drawing the attention of this Court to the above omission, it is
claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case of the
prosecution is a false one and the accused was falsely implicated in this case.
But the evidence of P.W.1 would show that he has stated clearly as to the
identity of the person who had attacked him and also the manner in which the
injuries inflicted on him with a knife used on the occurrence; Ex.P4 - wound
certificate would also co-relate to the injuries sustained by P.W.1 in the
occurrence. Though the prosecution had failed to prove the motive as alleged in
the complaint, it is equally true that P.W.1 did not had any motive to file a foist
case against the accused. Neither the cross-examination of P.W.1 nor in the
answers given during the Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings, no motive is
suggested against P.W.1. so as to implicate the accused falsely in this case.
12. On seeing P.W.1 (injured), P.W.2 rushed to the hospital along with
one Vijaykumar. Though the said Vijaykumar who assisted P.W.2 in the hospital
turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.2 is found to be supporting the case of the
prosecution and there is no reason for the Courts below to reject the evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
P.W.2. The doctor who had seen P.W.1 immediately after he was brought to the
hospital, has registered the Accident Register by listing out the injuries sustained
by him and the same was marked as Ex.P3. The injuries listed in Ex.P3 would
also coincide with the injuries sustained by P.W.1. P.W.9 – Doctor has stated
that since the intestine of P.W.1 got expelled from his stomach, he had performed
a surgery on P.W.1 immediately and that P.W.1 was taking treatment as an in-
patient for nearly 21 days; even to P.W.8 & P.W.9 / Doctors, P.W.1 has stated
that he was attacked with a knife by a person. The Doctor had certified that the
injuries sustained by P.W.1 are grievous in nature. There were cut injuries found
in the body of P.W.1. The injury inflicted on his stomach was a stab injury. It
was not denied by the petitioner that those injuries could not have been inflicted
with knife and in the manner as stated by P.W.1. In fact, when it was suggested
to P.W.9 - Doctor that if someone had fallen on an iron rod or a tin sheet from a
height, could get those injuries, the Doctor denied the same.
13. So the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient enough to prove that
the accused had attacked P.W.1 with a knife and caused grievous injuries on his
body. Though it was not proved by the prosecution that the accused had a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
previous motive against P.W.1 to kill him and thereby, attempted to murder him.
It is proved by the prosecution that the accused had attacked P.W.1 and caused
grievous injuries. Hence, in my view, the accused ought to have been found
guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC instead of 307 IPC.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the
judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu,
dated 21.03.2016 passed in C.A.No.57 of 2009 is modified and the accused is
found guilty for a lesser offence under Section 326 of IPC and is convicted and
sentenced to undergo One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed with a fine
of Rs.1,000/-. If the fine amount is already paid by the accused, it need not to be
paid again. The trial Court is directed to issue Non-Bailable Warrant to secure
the accused and to send him to prison for undergoing the punishment.
24.01.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA.,J.
Sni
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Maduranthakam.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.601 of 2016
24.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
