Madras High Court
Krishnamurthy vs State Rep By on 16 June, 2022
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
Krishnamurthy
Petitioner/Accused
Vs
State Rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sirkali,
Nagapattinam District.
(Poraiyar Police Station)
Crime No.45 of 2004)
Respondent
Prayer:- These Criminal Revision Case has been filed, under Sections
397 r/w 401 of Cr.PC, against the judgment dated 21.01.2011 made in
Crl.A.No.53 of 2006 passed by the Court of Session Judge,
Nagapattinam confirming and modifying the judgment dated
17.04.2006 made in S.C.No.220 of 2005 passed by the Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Pugazhenthi
For Respondent :Mr.S.Sugendran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
1/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has preferred by the first accused in
S.C.No.220 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Mayiladuthurai against the judgment made in Crl.A.No.53 of
2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him in SC.No.220
of 2005. The petitioner along with 4 others were convicted by the trial
Court for the offence under Section 147, 148 and 324 of IPC. They
were tried for the offence under Sections 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Attocity) Act. All the accused preferred an appeal before the learned
Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and the conviction was confirmed with
modification in sentence alone for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
2.Prosecution case is that PW-1/Complainant had lent a sum of
Rs.2,500/- to first accused. PW-1 demanded return on 21.01.2004 at
about 6.00.p.m. A1 refused and an argument ensued. Villagers
intervened and separated them. P.W-4 received a phone call calling for
P.W.1 and on being informed, PW-1 proceeded to return the call. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
his stepping out of PW-4's house, after doing so, he was attacked by the
five accused, they using Aruvals and knives. PW-11, brother of PW-1
proceeded to the scene on hearing the commotion. Both PWs-1 and 11
were abused by their caste name and threatened of being put to death.
PW-1 was stabbed in the stomach by A4, while PW-11 was so stabbed
by A5. A3 also caused cut injury to PW-11. On the complaint of PW-1,
a case was registered. Upon completion of investigation and filing of
final report informing commission of offences u/s.147, 148, 341,
294(b), 324, 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.35 of 2004 on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Mayiladuthurai. Upon committal, the
case was tried in S.C.No.220 of 2005 on the file of Additional Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
3. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and
marked 15 exhibits and two Material Objects. None were examined on
the side of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. On questioning
u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied charges. On appreciation of
materials before it, trial Court under judgment dated 17.04.2006,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
convicted petitioners for offences u/s.147, 148 and 324 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo one week R.I. for offence u/s 147 IPC, 2
weeks R.I for offence u/s.148 IPC and 2 years R.I., and fine of
Rs.2,000/- each i/d 3 months R.I. for offence u/s. 324 IPC. Petitioners
were acquitted of offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All five accused
move C.A.No.53 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam, which Court, under judgment dated 21.01.2011,
acquitted A1, 4 & 5 of charge u/s. 147 IPC, convicted A2 and 3 for such
offence, conviced A1, 4 & 5 for offences u/s. 148 and 324 but reduced
the sentence for offence u/s. 324 to 6 months R.I. Sentences of fine
were confirmed and substantial sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
fourth and fifth accused in this case had preferred revision before this
Court in Crl.R.C.No.699 of 2011. This Court by an order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
28.08.2017 acquitted them of all the charges and allowed the revision.
He would further submit that the finding of this Court with regard to the
petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.699 of 2011 would be applicable to the
petitioner in this case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly
concedes that position.
6.We find that while disposing the revision filed by the fourth and
fifth accused, this Court was pleased to observed as follows:
11. We are unable to subscribe to the reasoning of
the Appellate Court. Once a charge is framed for
offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, the case is to be tried by a Special Court
constituted in keeping Section 14 of the Act.
Whether prosecution succeeds or not in proving
such a charge is a matter for trial. The fact that
such charge has not been proved at the trial
would not validate a trial of the case by a Court
not empowered to do so. Once the mandate of the
law is violated the entire trial is vitiated. Even on
facts this Court finds that both P.W.1 and P.W.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
have admitted to a group clash and the evidence
of PW-4 falsifies the version of PW-1 and PW-11,
injured persons, on the manner they arrived at the
scene. The genesis of the occurrence is unclear.
This is more particularly so, since PW-1 has
admitted to not informing police that A5 caused
him stab injury and further that the quarrel
between both groups was on for about half an
hour. The occurrence allegedly took place on
21.01.2004 at about 7.30.p.m. FIR was registered
on the next day i.e., 22.01.2004 at about
12.00.noon and the same was forwarded to Court
only on 23.01.2004 at about 1.00.p.m. In the
circumstances of the case, possibility of the FIR
being a product of deliberation cannot be ruled
out.
7. In fact when the said revision was taken up by this Court, the
petitioner had not preferred any revision. It was only thereafter this
revision came to be filed with a delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
8. We are of the view that the benefit of the finding of this Court
referred above has to extended to the petitioner as well. This Court had
observed that the trial was vitiated, since an offence under SC/ST Act
was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge who was not competant to try
the said offence. This Court also found out that the evidence of the
witnesses cannot be believed and it is unsafe to convict the accused.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Revision is allowed
and the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam passed in C.A.No.53 of
2006 confirming the judgement of the learned Additional Assistant
Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, passed in S.C.No.220 of 2005 shall
stand set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges.
10.Fine if any paid shall be refunded. The bail bond if any
executed by the petitioner accused shall stand cancelled.
16.06.2022
Index:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
vsn
To:
1.The Session Judge, Nagapattinam
2.The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirkali,
Nagapattinam District.
(Poraiyar Police Station)
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vsn
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.707 of 2017
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
