Madras High Court
Balu @ Balachandar vs The State Rep.By on 25 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
Balu @ Balachandar .. Petitioner/accused
Vs.
The State rep.by
Station House Officer,
Virudhachalam Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
Crime No.499/2008 .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set
aside the Judgment in C.A.No.84 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of
the III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anburajneelunikki
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging
the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, made in C.A.No.84 of 2016 dated
28.04.2017.
2. The revision petitioner is a sole accused before the trial
Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2008 at about 7.30
p.m., when the son of the defacto complainant was in the shop, the
accused abused him in filthy language and threatened him by saying that
he did not get solatium from the Non-Government Organisation and had
threw a blue metal on the eyes of PW.2 and thereby caused injury on his
left eye. He also threatened him with dire consequence. Hence the
accused was charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and
506(ii) IPC. On the complaint given by PW.1 Manokaran/defacto
complainant, a case was registered by Virudhachalam police station in
Crime No, 499 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and
506(ii) IPC. The FIR was prepared by PW.6-Mariyappan/Head
Constable. After registering the case, PW.6 went to the place of
occurrence, enquired some of the witnesses and prepared the Observation
Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and thereafter handed over the file
for further investigation to PW.9. PW.9-Amalraj/ the Sub Inspector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
Police continued the investigation and enquired the witnesses. The
accused was already arrested by PW.6 and sent him to remand. PW.9
enquired the doctor who treated the injured and obtained wound
certificate. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed
against the accused under Sections 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC.
3. On being satisfied with the materials available on record,
the accused was questioned for the offence under Sections 294(b), 326
and 506(ii) IPC. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, the trial was conducted.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution,
nine (9) witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.9 and six (6)
documents have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. When the incriminating
evidence available on record was put to the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C., he denied the same. On the side of accused no witness was
examined and no document has been marked.
5. After the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of
the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge found the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
accused guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and convicted and
sentenced him as follows:
Rank of Charges Findings Punishment
the
accused
Sole U/s 324 Guilty Convicted and sentence to
accused IPC undergo Simple Imprisonment
for six months
U/s.294(b) Not guilty Acquitted
and 506(ii)
IPC
6. The appeal preferred by the accused in C.A.No.84 of 2016
before the III Additional District and Session Judge, Cuddalore and was
dismissed in part and the sentence was modified from 6 months S.I to 3
months S.I. Aggrieved over that, the accused has preferred this criminal
revision case.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/
accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the State.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
submitted that the act of the accused would only fall under sudden
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
provocation, for which, the accused ought to have been found guilty for
the offence under Section 334 IPC; even according to the evidence of
PW.2, who is the injured, he his capable of driving his car. Hence it is
false to say that he had lost his sight on his left eye; lot of contradictions
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that was omitted to be
appreciated by the Courts below, hence the accused should be acquitted.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the State
submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses and the evidence of
the doctor would go to show that the accused had voluntarily hurt PW.2
by throwing stones on his eye; the lower Court had properly appreciated
the evidence on record and convicted the accused. Hence there is no
scope for interference.
10. Points for consideration:
Whether the judgement of the appellate court suffer from
any factual or legal infirmity so as to warrant my interference?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
11. The case was registered based on the complaint given by
the father of the injured viz.,Manokaran. The complainant was examined
as PW.1 and he has stated that his son is in-charge of the Non-
Governmental Organisation which is involved in the issues relating to
women. The accused approached PW.2 to help him to getting financial
relief for his wife who was pregnant. On the date of occurrence the
accused came to the shop of PW.2 and enquired PW.2 about the sanction
of financial relief. PW.2, who is the injured, has stated in his evidence
that the accused abused him for not sanctioning the financial relief to his
pregnant wife; and he did not listen to his reply that it could be given
only after proper verification. The accused without listening to PW.2 had
thrown the blue metal on him and that caused injury over his left eye.
The doctor who treated PW.2 has also noticed the injury on the left eye of
PW.2. The wound certificate would also show that PW.2 had taken
treatment at Arvind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry for the injury on his eyes.
12. Basing on the treatment and findings of the
ophthalmological examination, the doctor / PW.8 has stated that the
injury caused on the left eye was grievous in nature. PW.7 /
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
Dr.Sivanandam, who treated PW.2 at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry,
has stated in his evidence that surgery was performed on the left eye of
PW.2. However his evidence does not state anything about the loss of
sight. The learned trial Judge had rejected the certificate of PW.8 /doctor
that the injury sustained by PW.2 was grievous in nature. It is because of
the reasons that PW.8 /doctor is not an eye specialist. So the learned trial
Judge had proceeded to find the accused guilty for the offence under
Section 324 IPC alone. The evidence was re-appreciated by the appellate
Court and the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 324
IPC. The appreciation of evidence and the background of the evidence as
discussed above by the Courts below does not suffer from any factual or
legal infirmity.
13. In order to punish a person for the offence under Section
334 IPC, the act of causing hurt on some one should have been done due
to grave and sudden provocation. In the case on hand, the evidence of the
prosecution witness does not reveal that the accused was provocated by
PW.2 only in view of which he threw blue stones on his eyes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.4 who is an independent
witness. PW.4 has simply stated that he saw the accused and PW2
shouting at each other and during that course, the accused injured PW.2.
The above evidence does not disclose that the accused was provocated by
PW.2. In fact the accused who came and met PW.2 and enquired him
about the progress of his application to sanction financial assistance for
his pregnant wife through the NGO of PW.2. Hence there is no basis to
find the accused guilty for the offence under Section 334 IPC instead of
324 IPC. Hence I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Case
filed by the petitioner/accused.
15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
and the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, dated 28.04.2017 passed in
C.A.No.84 of 2016 is confirmed. The period of sentence already
undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
16. The trial Court is directed to issue NBW to secure the
petitioner/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining
period of sentence.
25.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
R.N. MANJULA, J.
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.686 of 2017
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
