Madras High Court
Chinnappa vs State Represented By Its on 19 October, 2022
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
1.Chinnappa
2.Krishnappa ... Petitioners
Versus
State Represented by its
Inspector of Police,
Kelamangalam Police Station,
Krishnagiri
crime No.5 of 2008 ... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in CC.No.130 of 2008
dated 23.08.2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Denkanikottai and confirmed the order in Crl.A.No.42 of 2017 dated
12.01.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
and to set aside the said conviction and sentence.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
For Petitioners : Ms.K.Akshaya
for Dr.S.Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
ORDER
This criminal revision is filed challenging the orders passed in
Crl.A.No.42 of 2017 dated 12.01.2018 on the file of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby confirmed the orders passed in
CC.No.130 of 2008 dated 23.08.2017 on the file of the learned District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai, thereby convicted the
petitioners for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is an agriculturist
and he owned the property comprised in survey Nos.37 & 38 in Jekkeri and
survey Nos.620 and 621 in Podichipalli. While being so, the accused
persons encroached the Government lands and they had put up fence on the
way, in which the victim entered into their land. In this regard, he already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
lodged complaint before the revenue authorities and on enquiry, the accused
were directed to remove the fence. However, it was not removed. On
05.01.2008, when the victim and his brother had been to their land and they
found stones and thorny bushes in their way to land. When they cleared the
same, the accused scolded him with filthy languages and pushed him on the
stones and took stones and attacked him on his back and also on his whole
body. Therefore, he sustained injuries and immediately admitted into
hospital. On his complaint, FIR was registered in crime No.5 of 2008 for the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken
cognizance by the trial court in CC.No.130 of 2008.
3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, examined PW1 to
PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the accused, no one was
examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court found the petitioners guilty for the
offence under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC and ordered to pay a sum of
Rs.1,000/-(each) for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section
324 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeal and the
same was also dismissed and confirmed the conviction passed by the trial
court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there
are contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt. The
occurrence took place on 05.01.2008, whereas the complaint was lodged
only on 08.01.2008. In fact on the injury sustained by the victim, he was
admitted into hospital on 05.01.2008 and he was discharged from the
hospital on 07.01.2008 itself. Even then, the victim failed to lodge complaint
immediately. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodgment of
complaint. It shows that the victim lodged false complaint as against the
petitioners due to previous enmity.
4.1 She further submitted that even according to the victim, he
alleged that the petitioners only pushed him down on the stones. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
he fell down on the stones and sustained injury, whereas he stated before the
doctor that known male persons attacked him with stick and hands.
Therefore, he sustained injuries. Further, the victim was brought to the
hospital by one Sarathbabu, whereas PW1 deposed that he was taken to the
hospital by his brother one, Saudappa who was examined as PW2. In fact,
PW2 deposed that PW1 was attacked by the accused persons, who pushed
his brother and attacked with hands, thereby he sustained injuries.
Therefore, there were full of contradictions and there was delay in lodgment
of complaint. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any
doubt.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side)
appearing for the respondent / police submitted that in order to bring the
charge to home, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1
to Ex.P6. The injured was examined as PW1 and the eye witness to the
occurrence was examined as PW2. The doctor who treated PW1 was
examined as PW6. On receipt of complaint, FIR was registered by PW7.
The delay in lodgment of complaint would not cause any prejudice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
petitioners. Immediately after the occurrence, he was admitted into hospital
and he was treated for three days as in-patient. Therefore, PW1 could not
able to lodge complaint immediately. After discharge from the hospital, he
lodged complaint on 08.01.2008. Therefore, the said delay is not fatal to the
case of the prosecution. Small contradictions between PW1 and PW2 are
also not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Only on the date of occurrence
i.e. 05.01.2008, the petitioners attacked the injured i.e. PW1, due to which
he sustained injuries. The doctor, who treated PW1, was examined as PW6.
She categorically deposed that PW1 sustained injury due to the attack by the
accused persons. Therefore, both the courts below rightly convicted the
petitioners for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC.
6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent / police.
7. Admittedly, there was enmity between the petitioners and the
victim and his brother with regards to usage of common way. According to
PW1, he owned property and adjacent to the said property, there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
Government property which was encroached by the accused persons. They
also put up fence obstructing the common pathway to enter into the victim's
property. When it was questioned by them, the accused persons pushed him
down and also attacked him, due to which he sustained injuries and he was
admitted into hospital on 05.01.2008. The doctor who treated him was
examined as PW6. On perusal of evidence of PW6, she categorically
deposed that known male persons attacked him with stick and stones, due to
which he sustained six injuries. Thereafter, he was discharged on
07.01.2008 and the complaint was lodged on 08.01.2008. Therefore, PW1
could not able to lodge complaint immediately after the occurrence. That
apart, the said delay would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners and it
would not affect the case of the prosecution. There is no dispute that PW1
sustained injuries and he was admitted into the hospital and had taken
treatment for three days. Insofar as the contradictions between PW1 and
PW2, those are all very trivial in nature and it would not affect the case of
the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
8. The victim was examined as PW1 and PW2 is the eye witness
to the occurrence. Both categorically deposed that the petitioners attacked
PW1 and due to which, he sustained injuries and immediately, he was
admitted into hospital. Therefore, the courts below rightly convicted the
petitioners for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC. However,
insofar as the sentence, considering the age of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to reduce the same.
9. As such, the judgment in Crl.A.No.42 of 2017 dated
12.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri
confirming the judgment passed in CC.No.130 of 2008 dated 23.08.2017 by
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai is
modified as follows:
(i) The conviction rendered for the offences under
Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC is confirmed.
(ii) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the
courts below is reduced to the period already
undergone by the petitioners on condition that
each of the petitioners shall pay a sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
directly to the victim i.e. PW1 by way of demand
draft as compensation within a period of four
weeks from today and shall produce the
acknowledgment receipt before the trial court. If
the petitioners fail to pay the compensation, the
sentence imposed by the courts below shall stand
automatically restored and the respondent is
directed to secure the petitioners for serving their
remaining period of sentence.
(iii) The fine imposed by the courts below for the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is hereby
confirmed.
(iv) On payment of Rs.15,000/-(each), the petitioners
are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless
their custody are required in connection with any
other case and the bail bond, if any executed by
the petitioners, shall stand cancelled.
10. Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed.
19.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
lok
To
1.The learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Krishnagiri
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Denkanikottai
Crl.RC.No.267 of 2018
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
