Madras High Court
G.Shameer vs State By on 22 September, 2022
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2018
G.Shameer
...Petitioner
Versus
State by
The Inspector of Police,
B-13, Pothanur Police,
Pothanur, Coimbatore District,
(Cr.No.971 of 2011) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 rw 401
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in so far relates to
order passed in C.A.No.204 of 2015 dated on 28.06.2017 on the file of
learend IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
Coimbatore district whereby modify the conviction and sentence dated
18.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate
VII, Coimbatore, Coimbatore district from six months imprisonment to
three months imprisonment and set aside the same.
1/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji
Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
This revision arises against the judgment of the learned IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore district passed in
C.A.No.204 of 2015 dated on 28.06.2017.
s
2.The prosecution case is that the petitioner abused P.W.1 and P.W.2
using unparliamentary language in public place and further, the accused
has pushed P.W.1 down thereby causing grievous hurt and had beaten
P.W.2 with a wooden stick on her cheek and caused her simple injury and
hence, the petitioner was guilty under Sections 75(i) of TNCP Act and
Sections 324 & 325 of IPC.
3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked Exs.P.1
to Ex.P.7 and M.O.1. The petitioner has not examined any witnesses and
not marked any exhibits on his side.
4. The trial Court found that the evidence of P.W.1 was
corroborated by the evidence of (P.W.6) Doctor to establish the P.W.1
2/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
sustained injuries. The Trial Court therefore convicted the petitioner for
the offence under Section 323 IPC. The Appellate Court found that the
prosecution has not established that the nature of injuries found on P.W.1
is grievous in nature as they had not produced X-ray and supporting
documents to establish the same. Further, the Appellate Court found that
the prosecution had established that the victim suffered injuries due to the
act of the petitioner and covicted the petitioner for the offence under
Section 323 IPC and imposed a sentence of three months SI.
5.Heard, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
6.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the prosecution has not proved the nature of the injuries and the evidence
of the victim and the other witnesses, do not inspire confidence. Hence, the
coviction by the Courts below, are liable to be setaside.
7.Mr.S.Balaji, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), submitted that the
scope of revision is limited and this Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgement of the Courts
3/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
below.
8.I find that the Courts below have on appreciation of the evidence
of the witnesses, believed their version. There is no infirmity in the finding
of the Courts below in this regard. The Appellate Court had rightly
concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under
Section 325 IPC since the relevant medical record namely the X-ray was
not produced. The finding of the Appellate Court holding the Appellant
guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC cannot be faulted.
9.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of nearly 45 days. Further, he
would submit that the occurrence had taken place 12 years ago and the
victim and the petitioner are neighbours. Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) confirmed the fact that the petitioner had already
suffered 45 days imprisonment.
10.Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that occurrence had taken place 12 years ago, and that the
4/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
petitioner has been in custody for nearly 45 days, this Court is of the view
that the sentence alone can be modified.
11.Hence, this Court is of the view that the sentence of
imprisonment can be reduced to period undergone and direct the petitioner
to pay compensation to the victim (P.W.1) Ibrahim. Accordingly, the
sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under
Section 323 IPC is reduced to the period undergone. The petitioner is
directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the victim, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in
default to suffer one month S.I.
12.With the above modifications, this Criminal revision is disposed
of.
22.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
vsn
To
5/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore,
2.The Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, Coimbatore.
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vsn
Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2018
6/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.85 of 2018
22.09.2022
7/ 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
