Madras High Court
Arjunan vs State on 29 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and
M.P.No.2 of 2015
Arjunan .. Petitioner
Vs.
State, represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Chidambaram Taluk Police Station,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.204 of 2007) ..Respondents
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.35 of 2012 dated 18.03.2015 on the file of the II Additional
Sessions Judge, Chidambaram convicting the petitioner under Section
324 of IPC and sentenced to two years R.I., and fine of Rs.1000/- instead
of conviction under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. In
S.C.No.16 of 2009 dated 21.08.2012 and set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed in C.A.No.35 of 2012 dated 18.03.2015 on the file of
the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Sunganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment of
the appellate Court, which modified the sentence imposed by the trial
Court resulting in conviction of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine
of Rs.1000/-; in default 6 months Simple Imprisonment for an offence
under Section 324 of IPC.
2. The facts of the case is that the revision petitioner and the
defacto complainant are brothers. Their mother left their residential
house and died in the year 1998. The petitioner herein was residing in the
above said house, in which, the defacto complainant was claiming share.
On the date of occurrence i.e., 01.05.2007 at about 9.15 hours, the
defacto complainant has gone to the house of the accused and demanded
his share, thereby quarrel erupted and P.W.2 who was present in the scene
of occurrence, pacified them. The petitioner / accused has pushed his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
brother away from the house. Thereafter, when the petitioner came out
from the house and saw his brother still standing there, he threw the
diluted acid on him causing burn injury on his face, chest and limbs. The
trial Court framed the charges under Section 294(b), 326 and 307 of IPC.
3. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence for
prosecution, particularly, the injured witness PW.1, eye witness-PW2,
Doctors-PW.7 and PW.8 and the wound certificate-Ex.P5 found that the
charge framed under Section 307 of IPC is proved, convicted him and
sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo for further period of one year Simple
Imprisonment.
4. On appeal, the appellate Court re-appreciated the
evidence and found that due to a sudden provocation, the accused has
thrown the liquid used for polishing the jewels and his intention was not
to cause death. Therefore, the ingredient under Section 307 of IPC is not
made out. While holding so, the appellate Court convicted the accused
for an offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to
undergo a further period of 6 months Simple Imprisonment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused would
fairly submit that the incident took place, when PW.1 had gone to the
house of the accused and picked up a quarrel with him, demanding his
share in the property. In the ensuing fight, the injury has been caused to
the defacto complainant. He never had any intention of causing death or
any grievous injury. The liquid was thrown on his face was kept in his
house, which is used for polishing jewels. The accused used that the
liquid to chase away PW.1 from his house. Therefore, considering the age
of the petitioner, who is above 71 years, and the fact that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the liquid thrown on the face of the complainant
contained acid, the benefit of doubt to be extended to the petitioner /
accused and he should not be convicted for the offence under Section
324 of IPC, at the most, he will be punishable only under Section 323 of
IPC.
6. This Court while considering the wound certificate, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
is marked as Ex.P5, and the evidence of doctors which clearly show that
the wound sustained by PW.1 is a burn injury. Therefore, on considering
the fact, there is no error in the appellate Court judgment. However,
taking note of the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2007
and it was due to property dispute between the brothers, it is suffice to
confirm the conviction, but alter the sentence as the period of
imprisonment had already undergone and a fine of Rs.1,000/- which
appears to have been paid already.
7. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
29.06.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
rpl
To
1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.
2. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.
Crl.R.C.No.429 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
29.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
