Madras High Court
Arumugam vs State Represented By on 20 January, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
Arumugam .. Petitioner
Versus
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Madukarai Police Station,
Coimbatore. .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to
to set aside the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge of Coimbatore,
dated 17.03.2015, passed in Crl.A.No.38 of 2015 in confirming the judgment,
dated 22.07.2014 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore in S.C.No.96 of 2011 in erroneously convicting the petitioner herein
under Section 307 of I.P.C and sentencing him to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment
and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Ponmani
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015 is filed by the
petitioner/sole accused, aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned II Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
Assistant Sessions Court, Coimbatore in S.C.No.96 of 2011, dated 22.07.2014,
thereby, finding the petitioner/accused guilty of an offence under Section 307 of
Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of five years Rigorous Imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of
another three months and the judgment of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 17.03.2015 in Crl.A.No.38 of 2015,
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused.
2. On 29.07.2010, upon receipt of intimation from Nataraj hospital, P.W.6,
Sub-Inspector of Police, went to the hospital and recorded a statement of P.W.1,
studying final year in Avinashi Arts college, that when she was returning home
on 29.07.2010 at about 6.00 P.M from Madukkarai bus stop, the accused called
her by her name. She replied by asking as to how did he know her name.
Immediately, the petitioner/accused caught hold of her hair and pulled her to
ground and before she could get up, uttered that beautiful persons like her will
not see the persons like the accused and saying so, he took out a knife and by
pronouncing her to die, slit her neck. When she attempted to stop the
petitioner/accused, he caught hold of her hand and also cut her hand also. She
suffered injuries on the neck and hand. Immediately, she was taken to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
hospital by ambulance.
3. Upon said statement, P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No.888 of 2010
under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter PW-7 took up the case
and completed the investigation and laid a final report proposing the
petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
4. The Final Report was taken on file as P.R.C.No.1 of 2011 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore and after furnishing of copies
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate committed the case as
per Section 209(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure to the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who took the case on file as S.C.No.1 of 2011 and
thereafter, made over the same to the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore, where the case is re-numbered as S.C.No.96 of 2011.
Thereupon, considering the Final Report and the documents, the Trial Court
framed a charged under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Upon being
questioned about the charge, the accused denied the same as false.
5. Thereafter, the prosecution examined the victim/prosecutrix, Ms. AAAA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
as P.W.1; her father as P.W.2; her mother as P.W.3; her brother as P.W.4; the
Doctor, who gave her the treatment, namely Dr.Natarajan, as P.W.5; the Sub-
Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R, namely Vijayalakshmi as PW-6 and
the Investigating Officer, namely Anbarasu, the Inspector of Police, as P.W.7.
On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint statement given by P.W.1 was
marked as Ex.P-1; the observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P-2; the signature
in the admissible portion of the confession statement was marked as Ex.P-3; the
seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P-4; the wound certificate, issued to P.W.1,
was marked as Ex.P-5; the First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-6; the
rough sketch was marked as Ex.P-7; the admissible portion of the confession
statement was marked as Ex.P-8 and Form-95 was marked as Ex.P-9. The
shaving knife used by the accused to attack the victim was marked as M.O-1 and
the prosecution rested its case.
6. Upon being questioned about adverse evidence on record and material
circumstance against the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no oral or
documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner/accused. The Trial
Court, therefore, proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
behalf of the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused and by a
judgment, dated 22.07.2014 found that P.W.1 has deposed to the effect that the
accused caught hold of her hair and pulled her down and by uttering the words
mentioned supra, used shaving knife with a blade and had slit at the neck.
Therefore, from the words uttered by the accused, from the nature of weapon
used, from the part of the body which he has chosen to inflict the injury, the Trial
Court found that there is intention to kill the victim. Therefore, the accused,
having inflicted the injury, which is 6 cm x 2 cm cut injury, as per the Doctor,
had committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court further found that in view of the injury, there could be no doubt
that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence. The victims' evidence
should be given the due importance and the other witnesses, namely her father,
P.W.2; mother, P.W.3 have also corroborated her evidence. Further, the
petitioner/accused on 31.10.2010, upon his arrest, has taken the Police to the
place in which he has kept the knife and has submitted the same, which is clear
from the admissible portion of the confession, which led to the recovery of a
knife. The said recovery is not denied by the accused. Therefore, the accused
had both the intention and also the knowledge that his action is likely to cause the
death of P.W.1. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the accused has guilty of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and findings, the petitioner/accused
filed a Crl.A.No.38 of 2015 and by a judgment, dated 17.03.2015, the lower
Appellate Court found that the entire effort of the defence, during the trial, was to
establish that there was a love affair between P.W.1 and the accused and even
though P.W.1 denied it and went to the extent of saying that the accused is
stranger, the very defence case only props up the prosecution case and dispenses
with the requirement of test identification parade. Once it is not disputed that
P.W.1 suffered a cut injury of the denomination of 6 cm x 2 cm on her neck and
that she had to be given 21 stitches to close the wound, the same is enough
material to establish the guilt of the accused. The Appellate Court, further found
that the defence did not challenge possibility of P.W.1 knowing the accused and
therefore, in the absence of the challenge, the contradiction of P.W.1 stating that
she did not know the accused does not matter much. The lower Appellate Court
found that even though P.Ws.2 and 3 evidence has to be taken as hearsay
evidence, there is no way P.W.1's evidence can be discounted as she is the
victim. The lower Appellate Court further found that dispatching the F.I.R
belatedly to the learned Magistrate; not indicating the house of P.W.1 in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
rough sketch; not obtaining lab report of the blood stain sample; etc., are all the
lapses on the part of the investigating agency and the same would not enure to
the benefit of the petitioner/accused. As far as the injuries on the person of the
accused is concerned, the lower Appellate Court found that the defence had not
claimed that it was arising out of the same transaction and therefore, when the
accused himself has ignored the injury, the same will not affect the prosecution
case. Finding so, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Revision is laid before this Court.
8. Heard Ms.K.Ponmani, learned Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.V.Arul, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on behalf of the
prosecution.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following
circumstances clearly stare on the face of the prosecution:-
(a) In the earliest statement, which is made to the hospital authorities,
P.W.1 has stated that she was attacked by an unknown person. But, however,
after 2 ½ hours, at about 10.30 P.M, when she gave the statement, on which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
First Information Report was registered, she mentioned the name of the accused;
(b) At the time of registration of F.I.R, when the name of the accused is
clearly mentioned in the F.I.R and admittedly as per the evidence of P.W.7, the
investigating officer, the accused is also undergoing treatment in the same
hospital, the accused is neither arrested nor any action is taken. But, however,
P.W.1 would stated that after two days, when the accused was found at the
Madukkarai bus stop, he was arrested and there the accused has given a
confession statement and the knife was recovered;
(c) As per the case of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, they caught the accused at the spot
itself and therefore, the recovery of the alleged shaving knife from the place
shown by the accused is absolutely artificial;
(d) When P.W.7 had recovered the shaving knife, he has categorically
mentioned that he has not recovered the same along with the blade and when the
knife was having blood stains on the same, neither blood was recovered nor the
lab report, pursuant to Ex.P9 Form-95, was obtained from the lab and laid before
the Court;
(e) The manner of cut injury, as deposed by P.W.5, Doctor, clearly raises
strong suspicion whether it was inflicted by the accused, even while P.W.1 was
resisting, as it is clearly mentioned that wound was not open;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
(f) The investigating officer omitted to collect the blood stained earth from
the place of occurrence and this is a serious lapse which would go to show that
the occurrence did not happen in the manner as portrayed by the prosecution;
(g) The house of P.W.1 is not even there in the rough sketch. Therefore,
the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that they heard the cry of P.W.1 and rushed from
their house, appear to be, on the face of it, as false. In any event, there can never
be eye witness to the incident, in the manner in which P.W.1 narrates the incident
to happen;
(h) P.W.7, investigating officer, has categorically deposed that P.W.1 had
known the accused prior to the incident and therefore, she would submit that
taking into account the religion of both the parties, the defence of the accused
that P.W.1 and the accused getting caught in the hands of the relatives of P.W.1
and bot got injured on account of the attack by the relatives, can never by
overruled and on the strength of these circumstance, the Trial Court as well as
the lower Appellate Court grievously erred in not approaching the evidence in
right perspective and convicted the petitioner/accused merely on the solitary that
too self-contradictory evidence of P.W.1.
10. Opposing the above submissions, the learned Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
(Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution would submit that P.W.1
is the victim. Even though she had deposed that she did not know the accused,
the entire effort of the accused was only to establish that there was an affair. As
rightly concluded by the lower Appellate Court, whether there was an affair or
not, the factum of the accused inflicting injury on the particular date has been
proved by the prosecution and therefore, the nature of weapon used, the place of
injury, the manner of injury, whereby 21 stitches have to be given to P.W.1 could
clearly establish the grievous and serious nature of the injury, which would have
led to death of P.W.1, and her parents, P.Ws.2 and 3 and other relatives
immediately rushed to her rescue and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the
lower Appellate Court has rightly convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence
under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, he would submit that
there is nothing in this case for this Court to interfere by way of this Revision.
11. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side. I have
gone through the records. In this case, the first and foremost circumstances is
that P.W.7 categorically admits that the petitioner/accused was admitted in the
same Nataraj hospital on the day of occurrence, after he was injured and when
the F.I.R names him as an accused on the same date i.e., on 29.07.2010, at about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
10.30 itself, there is a serious lapse on behalf of the prosecution in not explaining
as to why the accused was neither questioned nor taken into custody. The manner
of arrest after two days, when the accused was arrested near the bus stop, itself is
in serious doubt. The first information report also reaches the Magistrate only
two days after it was regsitered. The second important circumstance is that the
redundancy, the self-contradictory nature of the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1, in
the A.R copy, has informed the Doctor that she was attacked by an un-known
person. However, within 2 ½ hours, in the First Information Report, she has
categorically named the accused including his place of residence.
12. In the chief evidence, she had deposed that___
“M$h; vjphpia vdf;F bjhpahJ/
rk;gtk; bjhlh;ghf vdf;F vJt[k;
bjhpahJ/”
This has been contradicted by the investigating officer stating that the name of
the accused is mentioned in the F.I.R only upon the statement of P.W.1 and he
would further depose that P.W.1 knew the name and also the place of residence
of the accused. Therefore, the entire prosecution case as if the petitioner/accused
was a stranger and as if he was stalking P.W.1 is seriously in doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
13. This apart, when the petitioner/accused had also suffered injuries,
P.W.7 admits that___
“vjphpia ePjpkd;w fhtYf;F
cl;gLj;jg;gl;lnghJ mtUf;F fhak;
,Ue;jJ vd;why; cz;ikjhd;/ ,e;J.
K!;yk P ; fhjy; Vw;gl;lhy; fytuk; Vw;gl
tha;gg ; [ cz;L/ …...... kJf;fiuay;
bghpa kUj;Jtkid eluh$;
kUj;Jtkid jhd;/ rk;gtj;jd;W
kUj;Jtkidapy; vjphp ml;kpl;
MfpapUe;jhh;/”
Similarly, it is also admitted that the accused had injuries on his person, at the
time of treatment and it was specifically put to P.W.7 on account of the religious
differences, these injuries could have been happened. Further, on behalf of the
accused, P.W.2 was specifically cross-examined that the relatives of P.W.1
including P.W.2 only hit the accused in the same transaction. While so, the
findings of the lower Appellate Court that the accused himself has disowned the
injury as not happening in the same transaction is contrary to the material
evidence on record. Therefore, when the accused was also injured in the same
transaction and was admitted in the same hospital as that of P.W.1, the
prosecution was duty bound to explain that injuries. Therefore, in the absence of
the same, the same also raises a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had, in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar1,
held as follows :
1 (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
“ It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by the
accused at about the time of the occurrence or in
the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance from which the court can draw the
following inferences:
“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the
genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has
thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the
presence of the injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most material point and
therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which
explains the injuries on the person of the accused
it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on
the prosecution case.”
The omission on the part of the prosecution to
explain the injuries on the person of the accused
assumes much greater importance where the
evidence consists of interested or inimical
witnesses or where the defence gives a version
which competes in probability with that of the
prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is
held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath
Singh received serious injuries which have not
been explained by the prosecution, then it will be
difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of
PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some
of these witnesses have lied by stating that they
did not see any injuries on the person of the
accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the
High Court appears to have given due
consideration to this important lacuna or
infirmity appearing in the prosecution case.“
The above dictum is followed in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
Court of India in Kumar -Vs- State2, in paragraphs 29-31, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the non-explanation of the prosecution of the injuries on the
person of the accused as fatal to the case of the prosecution.
14. In the present case also, all the witnesses examined are relatives of
P.W.1. The injuries on the accused were of such nature which required admission
as inpatient. Therefore, the non-explanation of the prosecution about the injuries
of the person of the accused, probabailises the correctness of the defence.
15. Similarly, in this case, the accused is said to have caused the injury
with a shaving knife and if so, certainly the blood stained earth would have lent
credibility to the case of the prosecution, but no lab report was obtained by the
prosecution. Again the seizure of the M.O-1 Shaving Knife under mahazar is
very much artificial. Further, the shaving knife was only seized without blade
and the answer of P.W.7 about the blade is evasive. This apart, it may be seen
that there is co-relation between the time of F.I.R reaching the Court, between
the time of alleged arrest and recovery which all happened two days after the
alleged incident, which also throws doubt in the case of the prosecution.
2 2018 7 SCC 536
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
16. Further, the house of P.W.1 is not even shown in the Ex.P7, rough
sketch and the entire version that P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed from their house, upon
hearing P.W.1 is very much doubtful. Further, P.W.1 had also deposed that the
accused had also inflicted a cut injury on her hand. However, the Doctor's
evidence and the wound certificate does not support the same. Even as per the
case of the prosecution, people from the neighborhood immediately came to the
spot and rescued P.W.1. But, however, not even a single independent person has
been examined as a witness in this case. All these factors, cumulatively throw
serious questions on the veracity of the prosecution case and certainly, it raises a
probable doubt in the case of the prosecution.
17. In the teeth of these doubts, the findings of the Trial Court as well as
the lower Appellate Court that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond
any doubt is perverse and requires interference by this Court in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction.
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The judgment of
the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated
22.07.2014 in S.C.No.96 of 2011 and the judgment of the learned Principal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 17.03.2015, in Crl.A.No.38 of
2015 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence giving the benefit of
doubt. Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.
19. This Court also places its appreciation for the learned Legal Aid
Counsel, Ms.K.Ponmani, for rendering effective assistance in disposing of the
present Revision Case.
20.01.2022
Index : yes
Speaking order
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
To
1.The Principal District Judge of Coimbatore.
2.The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Madukarai Police Station, Coimbatore.
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
20.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.490 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
