Madras High Court
Veeman vs State By on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
1.Veeman
2.Raja ...Petitioners
..vs..
State by
The Station House Officer,
Chinnasalem Police Station,
Crime No.267 of 2012. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C to
call for the records pertaining to the judgment rendered in Crl.A.No.1 of
2021 dated 11.02.2021 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Villupuram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in S.C.No.199 of 2013
dated 10.12.2020 and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.G.Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
ORDER
This revision arises out of the concurrent findings passed in
S.C.No.199 of 2013 confirmed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.04.2012 at about 7 a.m
while the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 taking water in a public water tap,
which is nearby the house of the accused persons, at that time, the accused
persons came there and abused the de-facto complainant in a filthy
language by stating that ''Vd; njtpoah ,';F te;J jz;zph;
gpof;fpwha;'' and when the same was questioned by her brother-in-
law/P.W.1, A2 assaulted him with thadi on his head and A1 also assaulted
him with spade on his right side head, eyebrow, cheek and left ear with the
intention of murdering him and when the same was restrained by P.W.1,
A2 assaulted her with thadi on her left elbow and further A1 also assaulted
her with spade on her left elbow and A3 and A4 scolded them and also
assaulted P.W.3/who is the wife of P.W.2 and hence, they sustained
grievous injuries and thereby, the accused persons had committed offences
Page No.2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC.
3.On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the
respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.267 of 2012 against the
first petitioner/first accused for the offences under Sections 294, 324 and
307 IPC and second petitioner/second accused for the offences under
Sections 294(b) and 324 IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. After investigation, the
respondent/Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Principal
Assistant Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi and the same was taken on file in
S.C.No.199 of 2013. The trial Court found that the accused persons were
guilty of the offences and framed charges against the first accused under
Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 IPC and second accused under Sections
294(b) and 324 (2 counts) IPC and accused Nos.3 and 4 under Sections
294(b) and 323 IPC.
4.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either
Page No.3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
side and also considering the materials available on record convicted and
sentenced the first petitioner/A1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under
Section 324 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 307
IPC. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the second petitioner/A1 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
four months for the offence under Section 324 (1 count) IPC and the
petitioners have acquitted from other charges. The accused persons 3 and
4 have also acquitted from all the charges.
5. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the same was dismissed by confirming the
Page No.4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
filed the present revision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 submitted that
earlier complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 on the date of
occurrence was suppressed in this case. According to P.W.1, immediately
after the occurrence, she straight away went to the police station and
lodged an oral complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police and the same
was suppressed, whereas P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that
immediately after the occurrence he straight away went to the hospital for
treatment. At that time, the police came to the hospital and recorded the
statement of P.W.1 and the said statement was marked as Ex.P1. He
further submitted that according to P.W.2, he was examined by
P.W.8/Doctor and at the time of examination, P.W.2 has stated that six
known persons assaulted them, whereas the case was registered against
only four persons. Further the material objects M.Os.1 and 2 were
recovered, but the prosecution has not proved that the same were used for
Page No.5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
assaulting P.Ws.1 and 2. The mahazar witness also turned hostile. Further,
the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case has also not
examined. P.W.4 who has examined as independent witness to the said
occurrence is also turned hostile and she did not support the case of the
prosecution. He further submitted that though the occurrence took place in
the morning hours at 7.00 a.m and also the place of occurrence is in the
residential area and therefore, none of the neighbours were cited as
witnesses and examined by the prosecution. The Doctor, one who treated
P.W.2 at Salem General Hospital was not examined as a witness. P.W.1 to
P.W.3 who have supported the case of the prosecution are relatives and
they are interested witnesses. Therefore, no proper evidence was
substantiated by the prosecution. The trial Court failed to consider all these
aspects and simply convicted and sentenced the petitioners herein and
therefore, the appreciation of the evidence of the trial Court is perverse.
Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the First Appellate
Page No.6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
Court as a fact finding Court should have re-appreciated the entire
evidence independently and also given independent evidence, instead of
simply recording the view of the trial Court. Therefore, the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the both Courts below are liable to be
set aside.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the injured witnesses and
they have categorically spoken about the incident that after the occurrence
immediately they rushed to hospital and the Doctors, who gave treatment
to P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8 and medical
certificate was also marked as Ex.P6. From the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, who are eye witness as well as injured witness, Doctors/P.W.7 and
P.W.8 and medical report/Ex.P6, the prosecution clearly proved that there
is a specific overt act against the revision petitioners and they have
committed the said offence and hence, the trial Court has rightly
appreciated the entire material facts, weapons used in the case and the
Page No.7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
injuries sustained by the victims and convicted and sentenced the
petitioners. He further submitted that even though the medical certificate
shows that the injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature,
however, weapons used by the petitioners and also the place chosen to
cause the injury are serious in nature. Therefore, there is no perversity in
the orders of both the Courts below.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
10. Admittedly, the respondent-Police registered a case against the
petitioners herein and two others in Crime No.267 of 2017 before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. The learned Magistrate taken the
charge sheet on file and after completion of all formalities, the learned
Magistrate found that since the offence is triable by Court of Session
committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram
Page No.8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.199 of 2013 and charges were
framed against the petitioners as stated above.
11. During trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution before
the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 9 witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and also marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to
P11 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the
side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was marked. The
trial Court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence
acquitted the accused 3 and 4 from the above charges and convicted and
sentenced them as stated above.
12. On a careful reading of the entire materials, it is seen that the
injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly spoken about the injuries
sustained by them, which were caused by the petitioners/A1 and A2. Even
the Doctors/P.W.7 and P.W.8 evidence also corroborated with the
evidence of the injured witnesses. Though there are contradictions and
Page No.9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
discrepancies, but that might not be a material contradictions, which will
not go to the root of the case of prosecution. Since in this case injured
were examined as prosecution witnesses and their evidence were
corroborated with the evidence of medical evidence.
13.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire
evidence and also given findings and while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court
and re-appreciate the evidence. However, this Court has to see whether
there is any perversity or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
14. Taking into consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who are injured witness and whose evidence were corroborated with the
medical evidence, this Court does not find any substantive reasons or any
perversity in appreciation of evidence, illegality or infirmity in the
judgment of the both the Courts below and there is no merit in the revision
Page No.10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
and the judgment dated 11.02.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, confirming the conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Kallakurichi in S.C.No.199 of 2013 dated 10.12.2020 is confirmed.
12.10.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
ms
Page No.11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Villupuram.
2.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Kallakurichi.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Station House Officer,
Chinnasalem Police Station.
Crl.R.C.No.268 of 2021
12.10.2022
Page No.12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
