Jayamani … vs The State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11454 Mad

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 29.06.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

                                             Crl.R.C.No.453 of 2015
                                            and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

                 Jayamani                                                       … Petitioner

                                           Vs

                 The State Represented by
                 The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                 Arakkonam Town Police Station,
                 Arakkonam,
                 Vellore District.                                               … Respondent

                 Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section

                 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of conviction, convicting the appellant

                 under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6

                 months and pay a fine amount of Rs.1,500/- in default to undergo simple

                 imprisonment of 3 months in C.C.No.341 of 2006 dated 05.11.2009 passed by the

                 learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam and the same was modified into 3 months

                 of rigorous imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.1,500/- failing which to undergo

                 3 months of simple imprisonment was remain same in CrlA.No.24 of 2010 dated


                 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                 24.02.2015 passed by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

                 Ranipet, Vellore District.

                                              For Petitioner   : Mr.Nagaran
                                                                Legal Aid Counsel

                                              For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
                                               Government Adocate (Crl.side)


                                                          ORDER

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Court below in a

matter arising under under Section 324 of I.P.C.

2.The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C.No.341 of 2006. He as A1

was charged for offences under Sections 294 B, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The Co-

accused 2 to 4 were charged for offences under Section 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. The

Trial Court convicted and sentenced A1 for offence under Section 324 I.P.C.,

acquitted A2 to A4 from all the charges.

3.The case of the prosecution as spoken through witnesses is that on

04.09.2006 near Munuswamy Barber Shop, at around 7.50 p.m., PW1 was

attacked on his head by A1-Jayamani with a knife. The other accused attacked

him using wooden-logs. PW1 sustained injury on his head, on the right and left

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis hand and right leg . When PW2 came in his auto all the accused ran away from

the scene of occurrence. PW2 has substantially corroborated with PW1 and

narrated the incident.

4. Doctor who medically examined the victim PW1, has given a Wound

Certificate Ex-P9 which indicates that PW1 had sustained lacerated injury in mid

peripheral region 6X1 cm, right fore arm 5X2 cm on the left leg and on the left

hand, lacerated injury over right leg and over the cheek.

5. The Trial Court, based on these evidences, convicted A1 for offence

under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous

imprisonment and Rs.1,500/- fine in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3

months. The other accused A2 to A4 were acquitted for want of evidence.

6. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the

Trial Court, the accused preferred a Appeal before the learned II-Additional

District and Sessions Judge. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence

found that the prosecution has proved the guilty of A1 committing the offence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis punishable under Section 324 I.P.C., by causing harm using deadly weapons, but

altered the sentence to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and confirmed the fine

amount and default sentence.

7. By way of revision the said order is challenged on the ground that the

Courts below failed to consider that there is no eye witness for the alleged

occurrence. PW2 and PW3 are only hearsay witnesses who reached the place

after completion of the crime and their evidences cannot be taken into

consideration to corroborate the evidence of PW1. The failure to seize the

material object, renders the prosecution to fail since there is no proof that the

injury sustained by the PW1 was caused using deadly weapon. Further, pointing

out that PW4 and PW5 who are Mahazar Witnesses have turned hostile, the

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire fabricate of the

prosecution case has been disproved and therefore, conviction and sentence ought

to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit

that PW1 has sustained injury and he is the injured witness and accused is a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis person known to him. The over tact of this petitioner is specifically spoken by the

witness which corroborates to the injury sustained by him and found in the

Wound Certificate marked as Ex-P9. The non-recovery of the weapon used in the

crime is not a ground to acquit this petitioner when other evidence established the

guilt of the witness beyond doubt.

9. This Court on perusing the deposition of PW1, who is the injured

witness, he has identified this petitioner as one of the assailant and the injury he

sustained on the hand of this petitioner, which is fully corroborated with the

medical evidence. This unimpeachable evidence is suffice to hold the PW1 is

guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., since the deposition inspires

confidence of the Court. There is no other possible reason for the injured or to

implicate A1 as the assailant. In fact, the Appellate Court after considering the

nature of the injury and the crime had reduced the substantive period of sentence

to 3 months rigorous imprisonment from 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

10. For the above said reasons, this Court found that there is no error in the

finding of the orders below. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the accused and commit

him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

12. The High Court Legal Service Authority is directed to pay the

scheduled remuneration to the Legal Aid counsel who appeared on behalf of the

revision petitioner and able assisted the Court.

29.06.2022

gba

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam,

2.The II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District.

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Arakkonam, Vellore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

gba

Crl.R.C.No.453 of 2015

29.06.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis