Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs State Rep. By on 10 June, 2022
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
1. Vijayakumar ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.371 of 2019
2. Kandhan ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.385 of 2019
Versus
State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
B2, Esplanade Police Station,
(L & O), Chennai-104.
Crime No.3068 of 2012 ... Respondent in both Crl.A's
Prayer : Criminal Appeals filed u/s. 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records and set
aside the judgement and order of conviction dated 03.06.2019 passed in the
Sessions Case No.16 of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional Sessions Court at
Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two Appeals arise out of the common judgment having been filed by
the accused 1 and 2 and as such are taken up together and disposed of by means of
this common judgment.
2. The appellants have laid these appeals against the judgement dated
03.06.2019, by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.16
of 2016, by which, they were convicted for the offence under Sections 341 and 333
of IPC and was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of one
month and three years respectively and in addition, were imposed fine of
Rs.10,000/- each for the alleged offences.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.10.2012, PW1 namely, one Sivaji
came to the Esplanade Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that, when he
was on duty in the Transport Corporation bus, the law college students who used to
occupy and create ruckus in the said bus, started picking up quarrel with him and
they assaulted him, caught hold of his shirt and used a small piece of iron to hit him
on his face and chest. On the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime
No.3068 of 2012 for the aforestated offences. PW9 namely, one Chellappa, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case and laid charge sheet and
the same was taken on file as PRC.No.93 of 2015 and after issue of copies under
Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court as per
Section 209 Cr.P.C and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.16 of 2016 and
thereafter was assigned to the trial Court.
4. Upon the charges being framed, the appellants denied the charges and
stood trial. The prosecution examined the said driver as PW1, the conductor of the
said vehicle as PW2 and one Purushothaman as PW3, one Gopalram as PW4 and
the doctor, who gave treatment as PW5 and one Gandhi and Anjalai as PW6 and
PW7 respectively and another doctor one Senthil Kumar as PW8 and the
Investigating Officer was examined as PW9.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint lodged by PW1 was marked as
Ex.P1, the observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.P2, the copy of the Accident
Register was marked as Ex.P3, the wound certificate given by the doctor was
marked as Ex.P4, the F.I.R as Ex.P5 and the observation sketch was marked as
Ex.P6. Upon being questioned about the materials on evidence under Section 313
Cr.P.C, the accused denied the same as false evidence and thereafter no evidence
was let in by them. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, by judgement dated 03.06.2019, while
acquitting the accused in respect of the other offences, convicted them for the
offence under Sections 341 and 333 IPC.
6. Heard Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent.
7. After arguments on merits, especially after considering the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 does not corroborate with medical evidence, the offence under
Sections 341 & 333 of IPC does not stand proved, the learned counsel for the
appellants/accused argued on the nature and circumstance of the allegations and
considering the fact that the appellants/accused getting infested by a mob behaviour,
being students, and not on account of any enmity whatsoever with PW1 and
considering their age and the manner in which the offences were said to have been
committed, would pray that this Court should consider the case to release the
appellants/accused on good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of
punishing them for the offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent
would verify and confirm the fact that these appellants were students at the time of
occurrence and the occurrence happened while they started returning home from
college along with a group of other students and that they were not involved in any
another crime and they have no bad antecedents except the present case and
considering the future of the students, there is no other impediment to release them
on admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent and have perused the
materials placed on record.
10. Considering the nature of allegations, the age of the accused persons and
the fact that they have committed the offence being college students and the nature
of injuries, while upholding the conviction of the appellants, I am of the view that
instead of punishing them, they can be released under the provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act by adomnishing them, since the petitioners have also
shown remorse for their conduct. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed
setting aside the sentence imposed on the appellants on the following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
(i) The appellants are directed to execute a bond for
good behaviour before the learned trial Court and to keep up
the good behaviour for one year from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment, and undertaking that they will appear
before the Court to take the sentence in the event of violation
of the bond;
(ii) Upon such execution, there shall be no further
punishment as against the appellants;
(iii) It is made clear that the appellants/accused are
released under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and therefore
they shall not suffer any disqualification on account of this
conviction as per Section 12 of the said Act. No Costs.
10.06.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
To
1. The XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police,
B2, Esplanade Police Station,
(L & O), Chennai-104.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371 and 385 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Anu
Crl.A.No.371 and 385 of 2019
10.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
