Madras High Court
Manjini vs State By on 11 March, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
Manjini ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by
The Station House Officer,
Orleanpet Police Station,
Puducherry,
[Crime No.434 of 2008] ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the judgment
dated 23.01.2015 made in C.A.No.10 of 2014 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Puducherry passed against the judgment dated 18.02.2014
made in C.C.No.134 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Puducherry.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ganesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor [Puducherry]
ORDER
The petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.134 of 2009 convicted by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry by judgment dated 18.02.2014 and
sentenced the petitioner/A1 to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo two months simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC, A2 to A4 were
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and A1 to A4
were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month
simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC. Aggrieved
against the same, all the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.10 of 2014
before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, who by his
judgment dated 23.01.2015 dismissed the appeal in respect of A2 to A4 and
confirmed their sentence. As regards the petitioner/A1, the conviction and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
sentence imposed for the offence under Section 325 was modified to six
months simple imprisonment instead of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. Further, the conviction and sentenced
upon the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 448 IPC is confirmed.
Against which, the present revision petition is filed.
2.The gist of the case is that on 11.10.2008 at about 2.45 p.m.,
P.W.5/Head Constable attached to Orleanpet Police Station received a
complaint from P.W.1/defacto complainant, who was working as a clerk in
Jipmer Library, after his work went to his house at about 2.00 p.m, at that
time, some sewage work was going on in the house of Annamalai/A3, the
debris were dumped in front of the defacto complainant's house, when that
was questioned there was a wordy altercation, thereafter on the intervention
of others both left the place. After 15 minutes, i.e. at about 2.30 p.m. A1 to
A4 trespassed into the house of P.W.1, abused him and assaulted him. A1
assaulted the defacto complainant on his mouth using a brick, A2 on the
right hand, A3 and A4 assaulted him with their hands. P.W.2 and P.W.3
who are the neighbours came there and thereafter, the accused persons left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
the place. Due to the assault, one tooth fell down and the defacto
complainant also sustained injuries in other teeth also. Thereafter, the
defacto complainant went to the Police Station, lodged a complaint,
accompanied by a Police Constable went to the Rajiv Gandhi Government
Hospital where P.W.4/Doctor treated him, issued Accident Register and
Wound Certificate. On registration of FIR, the same was placed before
P.W.6/Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of occurrence, prepared
observation mahazar, rough sketch, enquired the witnesses present there and
thereafter, on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. During
trial, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 were
marked. On completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner
which was confirmed with modification by the Lower Appellate Court as
stated above.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that P..W.1 and A3 were
neighbours, P.W.1 in his complaint states that debris were dumped opposite
to his house but in his evidence he states that the same were dumped in front
of his house. P.W.1 though states that he was attacked with bricks on his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
face whereby he lost his tooth and some of the teeth got damaged, P.W.1 as
well as P.W.6 admit that it is natural if such injury is caused blood will flow
but in this case, blood stained shirt was not produced, also in M.O.1/brick
there was no blood stains. Further, P.W.1 states that he produced the fallen
tooth but the Police refused to receive the same, on the other hand, P.W.5
states that P.W.1 lodged a complaint, produced two bricks and nothing
more. The presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is also highly doubtful, P.W.2 is
the adjacent resident of P.,W.1 and P.W.3 is the partner of P.W.2. Though
P.W.2 and P.W.3 state that they went to the Police Station along with P.W.1
wherein their statement was recorded, on the other hand P.W.6 states that he
had gone to the scene of occurrence, the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3
recorded. Added to it, it is the specific case that the wife and mother-in-law
of P.W.1, also sustained injuries, eye witnesses, but not examined as
witnesses, further there is no medical record for their injuries. From the
above, it is seen that it is the case of exaggeration, to brook the vengeance, a
dispute between the neighbours is blown out of proposition and petitioner
was falsely implicated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
4.It is further submitted that P.W.4/Casualty Doctor issued the wound
certificate/Ex.P3, in his evidence he states that the damage to the teeth were
not proximate, as regards the fallen tooth, it appears to be fresh. But in this
case, the Dentist who treated P.W.1 not examined. On the other hand,
P.W.4 states that based on the Dentist report, he gave his opinion and no
Dentist report produced. P.W.1 further clarifies that it was Dr.Saritha,
attached to PIMS, further treated him but Dr.Saritha not examined and no
corresponding medical records produced. P.W.4 further admits that there is
no external injuries, such as bruises or laceration on the chin and outer part
of the mouth. He further accepts that the injuries found on P.W.1 may be
due to fall. The case of the defence is that P.W.1 sustained injury long back
in Chennai, the same is magnified and used to implicate the petitioner in the
above case. The presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are highly doubtful, and they
are giving contradictory versions. The Trial Court failed to consider all
these facts and convicted the accused. The Lower Appellate Court failed to
consider the evidence and materials independently, mechanically dismissed
the appeal. Hence he prayed for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
5.The learned Public Prosecutor [Puducherry] submitted that P.W.1 is
the neighbour of A3, on 11.10.2008 he came home after his work at about
2.00 p.m, at that time, he saw drainage debris being dumped in front of his
house, he questioned the same, there arose a wordy altercation, thereafter, at
the intervention of neighbours, A3 and P.W.1 went to their respective
houses, 15 minutes thereafter A3 along with his son-in-law and others
entered into the house of P.W.1, A1 and A2 assaulted P.W.1 with the brick
on his face, A3 and A4 attacked P.W.1 using their hands. P.W.2 and P.W.3
who had come earlier were present at the time of attack, at their intervention
and others they got separated, P.W.1 and A2 and thereafter, the accused
persons left the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 immediately went to the Police
Station, lodged a complaint, P.W.5 registered FIR and sent the same to
P.W.6/Investigating Officer. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 was sent to the
Hospital along with the Police Constable, P.W.4/Casualty Doctor examined
P.W.1, recorded injuries sustained by him and issued wound
certificate/Ex.P3. Further, the brick/M.O.1 produced by P.W.1 was seized
though Form 95/Ex.P5. P.W.6/Investigating Officer took up investigation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough
sketch, recorded the statement of Doctor, perused the records and statements
on the initial investigation conducted by P.W.5 and thereafter, filed a final
report. The Courts below on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, medical
evidence of P.W.4 and the materials produced, had rightly convicted the
petitioner and other accused. It is further submitted that the other accused
preferred an appeal and after dismissal of the same, A2 to A4 have not
preferred any revision. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision
petition.
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials
placed before this Court, it is seen that P.W.1 is the injured victim, who is a
neighbour of A3, there was some dispute with regard to dumping of debris,
due to which there was wordy quarrel and thereafter, they left the place.
The presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 appears to be doubtful, further their
evidence is highly contradictory. The only witness is that of P.W.1, who
went to the Police Station along with two broken bricks which was used in
attack. P.W.1 admits that blood was oozing from his mouth and no blood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
stained clothes was seized. Further, in the brick/M.O.1, there is no blood
stains. P.W.5 admits that when he visited the scene of occurrence, there was
no blood stains found in the floor or anywhere in the scene of occurrence.
P.W.4/Casualty Doctor who treated P.W.1 states that four teeth were
broken, one tooth had fallen down, the injuries not proximate, the age of the
injury not proved, added to it no Dentist examined as witness through
recording of some fresh injuries were found. P.W.4 admits that such injury
in Ex.P3 could have been due to a fall. Further, there is no corresponding
external bruises or laceration which ought to be there when such injuries
occur. P.W.4 gives opinion based on the report given by the Dentist. In this
case neither the Dentist was examined nor any Dentist report produced.
P.W.1 further states that he went to PIMS and taken treatment with one
Dr.Saritha. Apparently, the said Doctor was not examined and no medical
records produced. In the absence of examination of Dentist, the report of
P.W.4, namely, Ex.P3 cannot be held conclusive. Further, in this case the
other accused were given fine sentence and they have already paid the fine.
As regards this petitioner/A1, for the offence under Section 325 IPC, since
there is no conclusive evidence this Court alters the conviction of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
petitioner from Section 325 IPC to Section 324 IPC and set aside the
conviction of six months imprisonment. The fine of Rs.1,000/- alone is
imposed.
7.In the result, the judgment, dated 18.02.2014 in C.C.No.134 of
2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Puducherry which
was modified by the judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in C.A.No.10 of 2014 is hereby
modified by altering the Sentence from one under Section 325 IPC to
Section 324 IPC and accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on
the petitioner is set aside. The fine of Rs.1,000/- alone imposed which the
petitioner already paid. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands
partly allowed.
11.03.2022
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
To
1.The Station House Officer,
Orleanpet Police Station,
Puducherry,
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Puducherry.
3.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Puducherry.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Crl.R.C.No.156 of 2015
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
