Guru vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2022 Latest Caselaw 15887 Mad

                                                                                        Crl.A.No.588 of 2021


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 10.10.2022

                                                            CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                     Crl.A.No.588 of 2021


                     Guru                                                   ...   Appellant

                                                             Vs.

                     The State of Tamil Nadu
                     Represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station,
                     Tiruvannamalai District.                               ...   Respondent
                     (Crime No.315 of 2014)



                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set
                     aside the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the
                     learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Tiruvannamalai in SC.No.86 of 2015, by a
                     judgment dated 17.02.2021 and to grant such other order.

                                     For Appellant      :     M/s.R.Mekala

                                     For Respondent     :     Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                              Addl Public Prosecutor

                     1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        Crl.A.No.588 of 2021


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of

Conviction and Sentence, dated 17.02.2021 made in S.C.No.86 of 2015, on

the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in

Crime No.315 of 2014, on the file of the Tiruvannamalai, Town Police

Station for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 307

IPC and after completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. The learned Judicial

Magistrate took the charge sheet on file in PRC No.18 of 2014 and after

completing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of session, since

the offences are triable by Court of session and the same was taken on file in

S.C.No.86 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District and Session Court and

made over to Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, as the offence is

against a woman.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

3. The Special Court has taken the case and after completing the

formalities framed the charges against the appellant for the offences

punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 307 IPC.

4. The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused

who is none other than the husband of the victim lady had been harassing the

victim using filthy language, whenever he is in drunken mood. Due to his

harassment, the victim lady left the matrimonial home and started residing

along with her parents. While so, on 08.07.2014, at about 4.30 P.M, when

the victim was inside the house, the appellant/accused came to the house of

the parents of the victim and abused her with filthy language and

strangulated her neck with a saree, due to which the victim raised alarm and

her parents, neighbors rushed to the scene of occurrence, rescued the victim

and admitted her in Tiruvannamalai Government Hospital. Thereafter, the

Police came to the hospital enquired the victim and recorded her statement

and the same was treated as complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1.

Therefore, it is submitted that the accused committed the offence with an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

intention to kill the victim and therefore, the prosecution registered the case

based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant and filed a charge

sheet.

5. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, on the side of

the prosecution during the trial as many as nine witnesses were examined as

PW-1 to PW-9 and eight documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 besides

one material object which was marked as MO-1. After completion of the

examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the incriminating

circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were

put before the appellant, the same was denied as false and on the side of the

defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The learned Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, after hearing the arguments

on either side and considering all the materials placed on record, found the

appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced, as referred below, which is

challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

6. After considering the evidence on record and on hearing either side,

the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 17.02.2020, found that the

appellant was guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 3 years

Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and

sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence

under Section 307 IPC and it was ordered that both the punishments should

run concurrently. Furthermore, the learned Sessions Court found that the

accused was not guilty for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC.

7. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the

accused /appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

trial Court failed to consider the admitted fact that the victim, PW-1 often

quarrelled with her husband and the PW-2, who is mother of the victim

admitted in the cross examination that her daughter never lived in

matrimonial house of the accused. Further, the learned counsel appearing for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that in the

alleged occurrence, PW-2 said that the door was locked inside and she along

with PW-3, who is father of the victim entered inside the house by breaking

the door, but in the observation Mahazar, there is no indication of breaking of

the door. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution had

failed to establish the scene of occurrence through other witnesses as the

witness to observation Mahazar have turned hostile. The learned counsel

further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the recovery of

MO-1 and the prosecution had not even marked Form-95 so as to establish

the seizure of MO-1. In this regard, the trial court has failed to consider that

the prosecution had failed to identify MO-1 through PW-1, so as to establish

that MO-1 was used to strangulate PW-1. The learned counsel further

submitted that the PW-7, Doctor admitted in cross that there were possibility

of injuries on neck by self tightening of neck and the injuries on PW-1 were

simple in nature. Further the learned counsel submitted that the trial Court

has failed to consider that PW-9 never recorded 161 statements from victim

and there was a delay in reaching the FIR/Ex.P-1 to Court and the trial Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

has failed to consider that the prosecution has not explained the two days

delay in despatching the Ex.P-1/FIR to the Court.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on

08.07.2014, at about 4.30 PM, the accused came to the victim's parents

house with an intention to kill the victim and strangulated her neck with

saree and as the victim raised alarm, the parents of the victim and neighbours

rushed to the occurrence and the accused escaped from the place and

therefore, they rescued the victim and admitted in the Tiruvannamalai

Government Hospital. The Police who came to the hospital, enquired the

victim and recorded the statement and the same was treated as complaint.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that the

accused committed the offence punishable under Section 294(b), 498(A) and

307 IPC. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that

the order of the trial Court is liable to be confirmed.

10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

11. Since this Court is an Appellate Court and also final Court of fact

finding, it has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to the conclusion

independently. Admittedly, on 08.07.2014, the occurrence happened in the

parents house of the victim. On a careful reading of the evidence of the PW-2

and PW-3, mother and father of the victim, it is seen that on the date of

occurrence, after hearing the sound of victim, parents of the victim (PW-2 &

PW-3) along with neighbours rushed to the place and they rescued her and

admitted her in the Government hospital, but however there is no whisper

relating to the allegation of accused uttering filthy language against the

victim lady in public and private places and therefore, the trial Court rightly

acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC

and that finding is confirmed.

12. As far as the offences under Section 498(A) IPC and 307 IPC is

concerned, the prosecution has proved its case. On a reading of the evidence

of the parents of the victim PW-2 and PW-3, it is very clear that the victim

was harassed by her husband whenever he was in drunken mood and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

accused picked up quarrel with the victim whenever he visited the home.

Frequently, the accused started to demand money and insisted the victim to

get jewels from her parents and therefore, the victim was forced to leave

matrimonial home. From the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, it is very clear that

the victim was not treated with dignity and comfort by her husband. In the

circumstances, this Court finds that the accused is liable to be punished

under Section 498(A) IPC.

13. It is to be noted that the evidence of interested witnesses, if found

to have credit worthiness, conviction could be based on an uncorroborated

testimony. If the evidence of sole witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy,

conviction is permissible. In cases of this nature presence of eyewitnesses is

mostly improbable. Though in this case no eyewitness are available, the

evidence of the victim is cogent. Therefore in the case of the present nature,

no independent witness could be expected, especially when the quarrel is

between the husband and the wife within the four walls of their house. The

medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of the victim.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

14. From the statement of the Doctor/PW-7, it is seen that the victim

sustained injury on her neck and she recovered after giving first aid in the

hospital and the victim informed that she was attacked by her husband by

strangulating her neck with saree and the Doctor opined that the injuries

sustained were 15 x 4cm injury on her left side neck and 0.1 x 3cm abrasion

injury in wrist and the same was registered in the Accident Register.

Therefore, the evidence of victim, evidence of Doctor/PW-7, Accident

Register copy/Ex.P.5, wound certificate/Ex.P.4 given by the Doctor prove

that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellant/accused was present in the occurrence and he had committed the

offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 307 IPC.

15. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved his case

through cogent evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the

evidence of the victim and hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with

the judgment of the trial Court. Considering the circumstances, this Court is

of the view that if the substantive sentence is reduced to 3 years from 7 years

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

for the offence under Section 307 IPC will suffice to meet the ends of justice,

since the injury is only simple in nature. Accordingly, while confirming the

conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence under

Section 498(A) IPC, only modifying the sentence alone for the offence under

Section 307 IPC as stated above.

16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the above

modification.

17. As per order of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.12143 of 2021, dated

04.02.2022, it is seen that the appellant is on bail. Therefore, the learned Fast

Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai shall take steps to commit the accused

to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.

10.10.2022 Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No pbn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

pbn

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai

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

3. The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crl.A.No.588 of 2021

10.10.2022

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