Madras High Court
Karal Marx vs State Rep.By on 20 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
Karal Marx .. Petitioner /6th accused
Vs.
State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Uthangarai Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in
C.A.No.2 of 2016 dated 09.09.2016 on the file of the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed in S.C.No.124 of 2013 dated 30.06.2015 on the file of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthangarai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanakarasubbu
for M/s.S.Rajanikanth
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging
the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri, dated 09.09.2016, made in C.A.No.2 of 2016, which
confirmed the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, dated
30.06.2015 made in S.C.No.124 of 2013.
2. The revision petitioner is the 6th accused before the trial
Court. The case of the prosecution is that in a group clash between two
factions of the village, quarrel arose between themselves. The accused
formed part of an unlawful assembly with a common intention to attack
the faction of Ramar/PW.1; on 31.01.2013, when PW.1 was standing in
front of his house, the accused formed the unlawful assembly and armed
with weapons, abused PW.1 and thereafter, the accused attacked him
with hands and knife and caused injuries on several parts of his body.
The accused attacked Ramu/PW.2, Krishnamoorthy/PW.3,
Dhanamoorthy/ PW.4 and Sudhakaran/PW.5 with weapons, hands and
legs and threatened that they would kill them. The allegations against this
revision petitioner, who is the 6th accused, is that by forming part of the
unlawful assembly he attacked Ramar/PW.1, Krishnamoorthy/PW.3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
Sudhakaran/PW.5 and caused injuries on them.
3. On the complaint statement given by PW.1 on 31.01.2013
from the hospital, a case was registered by PW.13-Sivalingam / the
Inspector of Police in Crime No.38 of 2013 of Uthangarai Police station
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC.
The investigation was also taken up by PW.13. He went to the place of
occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the
presence of witnesses. He enquired the witnesses and arrested some
accused along with the revision petitioner. The confession statement has
been given by A7 (Deivam) and on his confession PW.13 also recovered
material objects M.O.Nos.1 and 2 under the Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.3. He
also enquired the doctor, who treated the injured witnesses, and recorded
the statement and got the wound certificates. Some of the accused were
released on anticipatory bail. He filed the charge sheet against the
accused after completing the investigation under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 323, 324, 341, 307 and 506(ii) r/w. 149 IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge has framed the
charges against this revision petitioner/accused for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC. When the revision
petitioner was questioned, he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial, on side of the prosecution,
thirteen (13) witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.13 and fourteen
(14) documents and two (2) Material Objects have been marked as Ex.P1
to Ex.P14 and M.O.Nos.1 and 2. When the revision petitioner was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating
materials available on record, he denied the same. On the side of the
defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
6. After the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of
the materials available on record, the learned trial Judge had found A1 to
A4 and A6 guilty under various charges and convicted them. So far as
this revision petitioner/A6 is concerned, he was found guilty for the
offence under Section 324 IPC alone and was imposed with a fine of
Rs.1,000/; in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment.
7. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner/6th accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
along with some of the accused in C.A.No.2 of 2015 was also dismissed
on 09.09.2016. Aggrieved over that, the 6th accused has filed this criminal
revision case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for
the State.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused
submitted that there was previous enmity between the father of the 6 th
accused and PW.1/Ramar in connection with the election activities; the 6th
accused is an educated person and a trainer; he is getting some
prosperous income; the learned trial Judge found that the revision
petitioner/6th accused was not a member of unlawful assembly and he was
acquitted from all other charges except the charge under Section 324 IPC;
the 6th accused could not have stabbed PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 without
being a part of the unlawful assembly; there are contradiction between the
evidence of the injured witnesses and eye witnesses; the medical
examination also does not tally with the manner in which the 6 th accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
is said to have attacked PW.1. PW.3 and PW.5; the learned trial Judge
without giving due opportunity to the appellants to advance their
arguments had passed the judgment in a hurried manner; since there is no
material available on record to find the revision petitioner/ 6 th accused
guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the criminal revision case
should be allowed.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing
for the State submitted that the evidence of the injured witnesses are clear
enough to convict the 6th accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC;
all the injured witnesses are uniformly stated the overtact in the
occurrence and that they got injured; the learned trial Judge has rightly
found the 6th accused guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC; after
having filed an appeal, the accused did not pursue the appeal and only
because of that the learned first appellate Judge had dealt the appeal on
merits on the basis of the records available and passed the judgment
confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the revision case does
not require interference.
11. Points for consideration:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
Whether the judgement of the trial court suffer from any
factual or legal infirmity so as to warrant my interference?
12. The occurrence is said to have been in a group clash
between two factions. It is seen from the case of the prosecution that one
Ramar was leading one faction and A2 Sekar was leading the other
faction. Due to some local issue, the accused gathered in groups and
started attacking each other. In the said occurrence, it is stated that the 6 th
accused had stabbed PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 and caused injuries on them.
13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that the 6th accused who was not a party to the unlawful assembly was
not at all involved in the occurrence. He further submitted that since he
has attacked a person in the village he has been falsely implicated in this
case with some ulterior motive. He has further stated that since it was a
group clash, there were large number of people and hence it would be
difficult for anyone to tell about the exact occurrence. However, the
injured witnesses, can, to some extent identify who attacked them and
caused injuries on them. The specific allegations of PW.1, PW.3 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
PW.5 is that the 6th accused had stabbed them with knife and caused stab
injuries on them. However the doctor/PW.12 who examined PW.3 and
PW.5 and treated them has stated in his evidence that the specific injuries
seen on the bodies of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 are not stab injuries. Since
the very allegations of the prosecution is that the 6 th accused had caused
stab injuries on PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5, the injuries should have been stab
injuries. Since the evidence of the doctor who treated PW.1, PW.3 and
PW.5, do not tally with the type of injuries that would have been caused
on them, if they got stabbed with a knife, it creates doubt on the case of
the prosecution.
14. In view of the same, the Courts below ought to have
given the benefit of doubt to the 6th accused before convicting him for the
offence under Section 324 IPC. Considering the above facts and
circumstances and also the contradiction between the medical evidence
and the oral evidence, I feel that the 6 th accused has to be given the benefit
of doubt and for that reason the judgment of the first appellate Court as
against the 6th accused is liable to be set aside.
15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri, dated 09.09.2016 passed in C.A.No.2 of 2016 is set aside, as
against the revision petitioner/ 6th accused.
20.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Uthangarai
3.The Inspector of Police,
Uthangarai Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
R.N. MANJULA, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.162 of 2017
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
