Madras High Court
E.Krishnamoorthy vs State Rep. By on 20 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.466 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.466 of 2017
E.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner / Accused-1
Vs
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Arni Taluk Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.429 of 2005) ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w.401
Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 15.09.2016 made in C.A.No.59 of
2006 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Arni in C.C.No.265 of 2005, dated 26.05.2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekanandan
for Mr.A.Panneer Chelvam
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 15.09.2016 made in
C.A.No.59 of 2006 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Arni, dated 26.05.2006 made in C.C.No.265 of 2005.
2. The revision petitioner before this Court is the 1 st accused before
the trial Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2005 at about
11 a.m., the accused restrained PW1/Govindammal, while she was coming
in front of his house and abused her by telling that she was instrumental in
stopping his marriage and attacked her with iron pipe and thereby caused
grievous injuries on her. So, he was charged for the offence under Section
326 IPC.
3. On the complaint given by PW1, on 10.06.2005, PW8-Special Sub-
Inspector of Police Sivanandam registered the case in Crime No.429 of
2005 of Arni Rural Police Station under Sections 341 and 324 IPC and
prepared the First Information Report. He took up the case for investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
and went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar
and Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses and examined the victim and
the other witnesses and recorded the confession statement of the accused in
the presence of witnesses. He further enquired the doctor who had treated
PW1 and got his statement and wound certificate. After completing the
investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the 1 st accused under Section
326 IPC against the accused 2 and 3 under Section 341 IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the
materials available on record, the learned Trial Judge framed the charges
against the 1st accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC and the
accused 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 341 IPC and questioned.
Since the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried, the trial was
conducted.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the complainant eight
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8 and five documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence no witness was examined and no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
document was marked.
6. After the conclusion of trial and on considering the evidence
available on record, the learned trial Judge found the 1 st accused guilty for
the offence under Section 326 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as
follows:
Conviction Sentence
326 IPC To undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment
and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in
default to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, to
undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.
7. Aggrieved over that the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal
before the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in C.A.No.59 of 2006
and the same was also dismissed on 15.09.2016 by confirming the judgment
of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner/1st accused
has preferred this Revision Case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there
are contradictions in the evidence of the injured witness and other witnesses
and the weapon used for the occurrence was also not recovered and marked
as Material Object; the Courts below without considering the material
contradictions and giving the benefit of doubt had convicted the accused;
hence, this Criminal Revision Case should be allowed.
10 .The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent
submitted that the injured witness PW1 has stated about the occurrence in a
clear manner, and she had sustained grievous injuries by loosing her four
tooth on the upper jaw and three tooth on the lower jaw; PW6-Doctor has
corroborated the evidence of PW1 and he has stated that the injuries
sustained by PW1 are grievous in nature; the learned Trial Judge has
properly appreciated the evidence on record and found the 1st accused guilty
and there is no reason for interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
11. Point for consideration:
''Whether the confirmation of the conviction and
sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 326
IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, is fair and proper?''
12. It is seen that the injured witness has given Ex.P1-complaint that
the accused had a motive against her, because he thought that she was
instrumental in stopping his marriage. On the date of occurrence, he
avenged his revenge by attacking her with iron rod. From the evidence of
PW1, it is seen that she had narrated the manner in which she was attacked
by the accused. PW2 is the father-in-law of PW1 and he has also stated that
on seeing PW1 injured, he took her to the hospital. Even when she was
examined by the doctor, she has stated that she was attacked with the iron
rod by a known person. Though her statement to the doctor was not
exhaustive it is understandable that she would have suffered severe pain on
account of her severe injuries. There is no reason to reject the evidence of
PW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
13. It is true that the weapon which was used in the occurrence was
not recovered by the Police. Such lacuna on the part of investigation should
not affect the interest of the victim. PW2 has also stated about the motive
which is the reason for the occurrence. He has stated in his evidence that the
accused had an ill will with PW1 because he thought that PW1 was the
reason to get his marriage stopped. PW1 has also stated in her evidence that
the accused and his parents had doubt that she was stopping all the alliance
proposed for the accused. The evidence of the injured witness and the
evidence of the doctor tally well in respect of the manner in which PW1
was attacked. Since the evidence on record is more than clear to convict the
accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC, I find no factual or legal
infirmity in the judgment of the Courts below and it does not require any
interference.
14. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the accused was very young at the time of occurrence and he had
thought that the accused alone is the reason to stop his marriage; he was not
a habitual offender and he is the first offender. It is further submitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
the accused got married and he has two children and considering his age and
other circumstances of the case, some lenience should be shown in the
matter of punishment.
15. The occurrence is said to have occurred on 10.06.2005. Since the
present age of the accused is 44, he would have been 25 years at the time of
occurrence. It is true that the accused has not involved in any other offence,
prior to or subsequent to the occurrence. Though there is no disagreement
with regard to the above facts, the injured is a woman and she had lost four
tooth on her upper jaw and three tooth on her lower jaw. The disappearance
caused to the face of the victim because of the occurrence is something
irreparable. Since the offence proved is under Section 326 IPC, is
punishable with imprisonment for life, or the accused cannot be given the
benefits of 360 Cr.P.C. Also. The circumstances of the case would show
that the accused had acted in an impulsive manner by imagining that his
marriage was being stopped only by PW1. Considering the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and other circumstances, I
feel that the punishment should be reduced to some extent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
16. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and
the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated
15.09.2016 made in C.A.No.59 of 2006 is modified to the effect that the
accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo four months Rigorous
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC along with fine of
Rs.10,000/-. The fine amount already paid may be set off against the fine
amount now imposed.
17.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused
is an agricultural coolie, and he does not have any wherewithals to pay as
compensation to the victim. Hence, the injuries sustained by PW1 needs to
be compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme. PW1 belongs to
lower strata of the society and it would have been difficult for her to treat
her injuries. Being a woman, the injury sustained by her would have left
cosmetic concern and agony in her mind. She was also relatively young at
the time of occurrence and she would have needed to do dental implants,
etc., But, the Courts below have not considered the suitability to award
compensation in this case to the injured. Hence, I deem it fit to award a sum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to be payable to PW1 by the Government,
from the victim compensation Scheme, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20.01.2022
Index:Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ssn
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Arni.
3.The Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
4. The Director,
Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Arni Taluk Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
ssn
Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2017
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
