Madras High Court
Karunakaran vs State Rep By on 27 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.893 of 2022
1.Karunakaran
2.Ramakrishnan .. Petitioners/Petitioners 1 & 2/
Appellants 1 & 2/Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kattanoor Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.28 of 2016) .. Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 03.09.2022 in
Crl.M.P.No.2491 of 2021 in CA.No.92 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at
Srivilliputtur, and set aside the same insofar as the petitioners/Accused
NO.1&2 alone, consequently pleased to suspend the sentence imposed
against the petitioners/Accused No.1&2 in S.C.No.78 of 2018 on the file
of Assistant Sessions Judge, Aruppukkottai, dated 03.09.2022 and release
the petitioners on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balamurugan
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Madhavan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been preferred against the order
that has been passed by the learned Principal District Judge and Sessions
Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in Crl.M.P.No.2491 of
2022 in Crl.A.No.92 of 2022, dated 03.09.2022 and consequently,
suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioners/Accused No.1&2 in
S.C.No.78 of 2018 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Aruppukkottai, dated 03.09.2022, and release the petitioners on bail.
2.The petitioners were facing charges under Sections 341, 294(b)
and 307 r/w 34 , and 506(i) IPC before the Trial Court. At the conclusion
of trial, the Trial Court found that that charges against all the accused
persons were proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly,
convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 307 IPC r/w
34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to
undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and convicted
them for the offence under Section 341 IPC and sentenced them to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month and to pay a fine
of Rs.100/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of 1 week. Similarly the other accused persons were also convicted for
the offence under Section 307 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months. The above said judgment was rendered by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Assistant Sessions Court,
Aruppukkottai, in S.C.No.78 of 2018, dated 02.08.2022.
3.Against the above said conviction and sentence, all the 4 accused
persons filed an appeal. Pending appeal, all the 4 accused persons filed a
petition to suspend the sentence. The Appellate Court was of the view
that only limited role alleged have been played by the accused No.2 & 3.
So, they were granted suspension of sentence and enlarged on bail.
Insofar as the accused No.1 & 2/petitioners herein is concerned,
considering the seriousness of the allegation, it was dismissed. Against
which, accused No.1 & 2/petitioners herein preferred this revision.
4.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there
are many contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 regarding
the manner of occurrence itself. The injured was admitted in the
Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was taken to the other hospital. At
that time, he was found with sutured injury. At the time of giving
complaint, the defacto complainant was not in conscious stage and only
one injury alleged have been caused.
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would
submit that it is a case of retaliation. The accused Karunakaran and
Ramakrishnan were brothers. One Deivendran, who is the brother of the
above said Karunakaran and Ramakrishnan were alleged have been
murdered by P.W.1. Later, that case was ended in acquittal. Only after the
above said acquittal, the present occurrence said to have taken place.
The weapon used for attack is wooden log. Except P.W.1, all other
eye-witness turned hostile. But, injury appears to be serious and grievous
in nature.
7.But, however, there were 3 injuries. The first injury on the fore
head of the defacto complainant. It appears to be grievous in nature.
Finding that it is a case of retaliation, the petition was dismissed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Appellate Court. But, during the argument, it is brought to the notice of
this Court that in the murder case, the accused have been acquitted since
because of the first accused was a mentally ill person. Over which, no
appeal has been preferred either by the police or by the defacto
complainant.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that only
on the above said ground, acquittal has been ended. So, it need not be
taken into account to see that it is a case of retaliation.
9.Considering the nature of injury that has been caused, period of
incarceration and taking into consideration the reason for acquittal in the
murder case, the revision is liable to be allowed.
10.In the result, the order passed by the learned Principal District
Judge and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in
Crl.M.P.No.2491 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.92 of 2022, dated 03.09.2022, is
hereby set aside and this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
substantive sentence imposed against the petitioners in S.C.No.78 of
2018 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Aruppukkottai, dated
03.09.2022, is suspended and the petitioners are directed to be enlarged
on bail on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for
a like sum to the satisfaction of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Aruppukkottai, and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear
before the said Court once in a week at 10.30 a.m.
27.09.2022
Internet :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
Note : Issue order copy on 29.09.2022
To
1.The Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge,
Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Aruppukkottai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN ,J.
dss
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.893 of 2022
27.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
