S.Soundarrajan vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 16801 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 26.10.2022

                                                         CORAM:

                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                 Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022
                                                           and
                                            Crl.M.P.Nos.15898 & 15900 of 2022

                     S.Soundarrajan                                                ... Petitioner
                                                             ..vs..
                     State Represented by
                     The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                     Valangaiman Police Station,
                     Thiruvarur District,
                     Crime No.115 of 2018.                                         ... Respondent

                                  Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
                     to set aside judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.08.2021 in
                     C.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial
                     Magistrate, Valangaiman as confirmed by the judgment dated 15.6.2022
                     in C.A.No.13 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
                     Court, Thiruvarur.
                                       For Petitioner    :        Mr.D.Shivakumaran
                                       For Respondent    :        Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                                  Additional Public Prosecutor



                     Page No.1/13


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022



                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the

judgment dated 15.6.2022 passed in C.A.No.13 of 2021 by the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, in and by which,

confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.08.2021

passed in C.C.No.14 of 2019 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial

Magistrate, Valangaiman.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2018 at about

7.30 a.m., the de facto complainant one Uma Maheswari who is residing

at Thiruppurampiyam village within the jurisdiction limit of

Valangaiman Police limit went to her husband's house at Aandankovil

Village for taking Income and Community certificates, at that time, the

accused scolded her in a filthy language and assaulted her with wooden

log in her right and left leg, hip and also criminally intimidated her, due

to which she sustained simple injuries. Hence, the revision

petitioner/accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections

Page No.2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.

3. On the complaint given by the de facto complainant/P.W.1, the

respondent police registered a case in Crime No.115 of 2018 against the

petitioner for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. On

completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge

sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the learned

District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman and the same was

taken on file in C.C.No.14 of 2019.

4.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 marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8

and no material object was exhibited. On the side of the defence, no oral

and no documentary evidence was produced.

5.The trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either

side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the

petitioner is not guilty for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii)

Page No.3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

IPC and acquitted him for the said charges and found guilty for the

offence under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine

of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further

period of two months.

6.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Thiruvarur and the same was taken on file in C.A.No.13 of 2021.

The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on

either side and perused the materials, dismissed the appeal and confirmed

the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

7.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally

the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324

and 506(ii) IPC and for lack of reliable evidence, the trial Court acquitted

the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii)

Page No.4/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

IPC, however, on the very set of evidence, the trial Court has falsely

convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC. He

further submitted that during cross examination, the Doctor/P.W.7 has

deposed that generally, if a person lost his balance and fell down, the

injuries stated in the Accident Register Copy might have occurred. The

trial Court failed to accept the above statement, but convicted the

accused for the above said offence. He further submitted that all prime

witnesses i.e. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 who are the eye witnesses to the said

occurrence and P.W.5 and P.W.6/Mahazar witnesses have turned hostile

and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. From the

evidence of P.W.7, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner

for the offence under Section 324 IPC, but, failed to consider the same

and convicted the petitioner.

7.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as

per Ex.P5/wound certificate, the injuries sustained by the victim are

simple in nature and therefore, the conviction and sentence under Section

Page No.5/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

324 IPC is against law. During trial, the victim/P.W.1 has stated that she

was admitted in the hospital by her neighbour one Ayyappan, whereas,

the evidence of P.W.7/Doctor is that P.W.1/victim was brought to the

hospital for treatment by her sister-in-law one Kannagi. Therefore, there

is a discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7, which is

serious in nature and the same would go to the root of the case of the

prosecution. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of

P.W.7/Doctor especially during cross examination, which creates doubt

on the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that as per the

prosecution, the accused alleged to have assaulted the victim/P.W.1 with

a wooden log, however, the prosecution has not recovered the same and

marked as a material object before the trial Court, but without any

acceptable evidence, the trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced the

revision petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The de facto

complainant is none other than the wife of the revision petitioner and due

to wordy quarrel she made a false complaint against the petitioner.

Subsequently, she realised it and not supported the case of the

Page No.6/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

prosecution. The trial Court failed to appreciate that prime witnesses

were turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and

only based on the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court convicted and

sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

Therefore, the revision has to be allowed and the judgment of conviction

and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is

liable to be set aside.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent submitted that the petitioner assaulted the victim with

wooden log and caused simple injuries in her both legs, hip, back and

neck and the same is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7/Doctor.

The trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire oral and documentary

evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner and hence, prayed

for dismissal of the revision.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the

Page No.7/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

materials available on record.

10. Since the present revision is against the judgment of trial Court

and the appellate Court, this Court after hearing the arguments advanced

on either side and gone through the entire materials and also considering

the facts decide the revision at the admission stage itself.

11. Admittedly, the revision petitioner and the de facto

complainant are husband and wife. The de facto complainant/P.W.1 was

alleged to have assaulted by the accused with a wooden log and she

sustained injuries, hence, the petitioner was charged for the offences

under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. After trial, the trial Court

acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b) and

506(ii) IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the offence under

Section 324 IPC.

12. During trial, the victim, who is a injured witness was examined

as P.W.1 and she had clearly narrated the said incident and injuries

Page No.8/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

sustained by her. P.W.7/Doctor, who examined the victim has clearly

deposed that on 23.04.2018, when he was on duty P.W.1 was brought by

her brother's wife Kannagi for treatment and told that she was assaulted

by one known person with wooden log. On clinical examination, he

examined the injuries sustained by the victim and recorded

Ex.P4/Accident Register and also given Ex.P5/wound certificate. Hence,

the evidence of the P.W.1/victim is corroborated with the medical

evidence.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7

regarding who brought the victim to the hospital for treatment. However,

in the Ex.P4/Accident Register Copy, the Doctor has opined that one

known person had assaulted the victim with wooden log and that the

victim sustained simple injuries and he had given Ex.P5/wound

certificate to that effect. Though all the prime witnesses turned hostile,

but they admitted regarding the complaint and admission of the victim in

Page No.9/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

the hospital and hence, the prosecution has proved that the victim

sustained injuries. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by the

learned counsel for the appellant are only minor contradictions, and they

are not material contradictions and that would not affect the case of the

prosecution.

14. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1/Victim, P.W.7/Doctor,

Ex.P4/Copy of the Accident Register, Ex.P5/Wound Certificate, the trial

Court found that the revision petitioner had committed the offence under

Section 324 IPC. Since all the prime witnesses have turned hostile and

there are no materials to show that the petitioner scolded the victim in

filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences, the petitioner

was acquitted for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.

The appellate Court as a fact finding Court also re-appreciated the entire

evidence and rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence under

Section 324 IPC.

Page No.10/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

15.The scope of revision is very limited. Since the Trial Court and

the Appellate Court had already appreciated and re-appreciated the entire

evidence and also given findings, this Court while exercising the

revisional jurisdiction 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.

16. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1/victim,

P.W.7/Doctor, Ex.P4/Accident Register Copy and Ex.P5/wound

certificate and judgments of both the Courts below, this Court does not

find any perversity in the judgments of the Courts below.

17. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

and the judgment dated 15.6.2022 passed in C.A.No.13 of 2021 by the

learned Principal District and Sessions, Thiruvarur, is confirmed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

26.10.2022

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

Page No.11/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

ms

Page No.12/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

To

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman.

2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.R.C.No.1431 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.15898 & 15900 of 2022

26.10.2022

Page No.13/13

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