Madras High Court
Gajendran vs State Rep. By on 17 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
Gajendran .. Appellants
Vs
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police
C5 Vengal Police Station
Thiruvallur District.
(Crime No.151 of 2015) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of CRPC, to set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Assistant
District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur dated 30.11.2018 in Sessions case
No.146 of 2017 and acquit the appellant.
For the Appellant : Mr.V.R.Appaswamee
For the Respondent : S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for respondent 1
ORDER
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2018 by
the learned Assistant District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in
S.C.No.146 of 2017 in and by which, the appellant is convicted for the
offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years
rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
payment of fine, to undergo six months of simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.05.2015, at about 07.00
pm, in Kamakkambedu Village, in front of the house of one Ezhumalai, the
accused was quarreling with his parents and was trying to attack his own
parents. Therefore, one Kumar intervened in the quarrel and enraged by
the same, the accused hit him on the head with iron pipe, on account of
which, he sustained grievous injury. PW10 investigated this case and filed
charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate I, Thiruvallur which was taken
on file as PRC No.21 of 2014 and after issue of copies under Section 207
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and thereafter, made over to the Trial Court and taken on file as
SC No.146 of 2017. Upon the charges being framed under Sections 307,
294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC, the appellant denied the charges and stood
trial. The prosecution examines PW1 to PW10 and Exhibits P1 to P14
marked and produced the iron pipe as MO1. Upon being questioned about
the evidence on record and incriminating circumstances under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the same as false.
Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defense and the Trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
Court proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
leaned counsel for the accused and by the judgment dated 30.11.2018,
while acquitting the appellant for offences under Sections 294(b) and
506(ii), convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 and
sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, though initially argued on
merits submitted that the injured victim Kumar though alive at that time,
was not even examined and there are several flaws in the investigation,
however, in view of the fact that the petitioner is in prison from
30.11.2018, restricted his arguments on the question of sentence alone. He
would submit that there was no pre-planning or motive in the incident.
There was a quarrel between the family members, in which enraged by the
fact that a third party was unnecessarily intervening, in sudden fit of rage,
one single blow with the iron pipe was given. Thereafter, it may be seen
that the victim was treated as in-patient only for seven days and thereafter
he was discharged. The petitioner was 28 years of age as of the time of
occurrence. He has since to shown remorse for his conduct and is in prison
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
for a period of three years, six months and twenty one days and before
conviction also he was in prison for a period of twenty nine days.
4. Therefore, considering the nature of offense and the young age of
the accused, and his subsequent good conduct inside the prison and the
fact that one opportunity has to be given for the young offender to reform
himself and since he has undergone substantial period of sentence, that is,
more than three years and six months, I am of the view that the sentence
can be modified as one of the period already undergone and this criminal
appeal is partly allowed as follows:
(i). The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section
307 of the IPC by the judgment dated 30.11.2018 by the learned Assistant
District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, is confirmed.
(ii). The sentence is modified as the period already undergone and
the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is confirmed
Index : yes/no 17.06.2022
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
To
1. The Assistant District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur .
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
drm
Crl.A.No.44 of 2019
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
