Madras High Court
Jayshankar vs State By The Deputy ... on 3 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Criminal Appeal No.833 of 2016
1. Jayshankar
2. Vadivelan
3. Pushparaj
4. Vadivelu .. Appellant / Accused 1 to 4
Vs.
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gudiyatham Sub Division,
Gudiyatham,
Vellore District
(Crime No.907/2013
Gudiyatham Town Police station)
..Respondent /Complainant
Appeal filed under section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call
for the entire records in connection with Spl SC No.42 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,
Vellore District and set aside the judgement dated 07.12.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellant : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
[Crl. Side]
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the
judgement and order passed by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in Spl.SC No.42 of 2015 dated
07.12.2016, convicting A1, A3 and A4 for offence under Section 324
of IPC and A2 under Section 324 r/w. 109 of IPC and sentencing each
of the accused to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2013 at
about 6.30 p.m., PW1 was grazing his cattles near Olakasi Road,
Indhra Nagar. The Appellants (A1 to A4) were bursting crackers and as
a result, the cattles were disturbed and had starting running. This
was questioned by PW1 and as a result, the appellants are said to
have abused him in filthy language and also used his caste name and
A1 is said to have attacked PW1 with Knife (MO1) on the back side of
the head of PW1, A4 is said to have attacked with a knife (MO2) on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the left neck of PW1 and A3 is said to have attacked with iron rod
(MO3) on the chest of PW1. A2 is said to have instigated the other
accused persons to attack PW1. As a result of the same, PW1
sustained grievious injuries and he was admitted at Government
Hospital, Gudiyattam.
3. The treatment was given to PW1 by the Doctor (PW8) and
through him, the accident register has been marked as Ex.P10. The
following injuries were sustained by PW1 :-
Injury
Insised wound of 10 x 1x 1 cm in occipital
region
5x1x1 cm insised wound in Left lateral side of
neck
Insised wound of 6x1x1 cm in Right chest.
4. The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Police Station, got
the information from the Government Hospital, Gudiyatham, and he
went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reduced it to writing and the same was treated as a complaint
(Ex.P1). Based on the complaint, an FIR (Ex.P11) was registered in
Crime No.907 of 2013 on 02.11.2013 at about 23.00 hrs. The FIR was
registered as against all the accused persons for offence under
Section 294(b), 307 and 506 (II) Ipc r/w Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter
called as the “SC and ST Act”.
5. The investigation was originally taken up by one Ganesan,
who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He went to the scene
of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (EX.P4) and the
rough sketch (Ex.P13), in the presence of the witnesses. He
thereafter arrested A1, A2 and A4 at about 10.30 a.m. and based on
their confession in the presence of witnesses and the admissible
portion of the confession marked as Ex.P2, recovered MO1 to MO3.
6. The accused persons (A1, A2 and A4) were produced
before the concerned Court and they were remanded to judicial
custody. The materials that were recovered were sent to the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Form 95. At this stage, the investigation was taken over by
PW10. The investigation officer received the community certificates
of the accused persons (Ex.P6 to Ex.P9) and that of PW1 (Ex.P5) and
also recorded the statements of Tahsildar PW6 and the Zonal
Tahsildar PW7 and recorded the statements of other witnesses under
Section 161(3) of Cr.PC.
7. On completion of the investigation, the final report was
laid before the Court below. The copies were served on the accused
persons under Section 207 of Cr.PC. The Trial Court on being
convinced that there are sufficient materials to frame charges
against the accused persons, framed the following charges :-
Sl.No. Rank of the Offence
Accused
Persons
1. A1, A3 and A4 3 (1)(x) of the SC and ST Act
2. A1 to A4 294(b) IPC
3. A1,A3 and A4 307 IPC
4. A2 307 r/w 109 IPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sl.No. Rank of the Offence
Accused
Persons
5. A1, A3 and A4 3 (2) (v) of SC and ST Act
6. A2 3 (2) (v) r/w 109 of IPC
7. A4 506 (ii) IPC
8. The above charges were put to the accused persons and
they denied the same.
9. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked P1
to P13 and identified and Marked MO1 to MO3. The incriminating
evidence that was gathered during the couse of Trial was put to the
accused persons, when they were questioned under Section 313 (1)
(b) of Cr.PC and the same was denied as false.
10. The Court below on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution
has made out a case beyond reasonable doubts as against A1, A3 and
A4 for offence under Section 324 of IPC and as against A2 for offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Section 324 r/w 109 IPC and accordingly, convicted and
sentenced them in the manner stated supra. The accused persons
were acquitted from all the other charges. Aggrieved by the same,
the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
11. Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate, [Crl.
Side] for the respondent.
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and the materials available on record.
13. The victim was examined as PW1 in this case. He has
explained about the entire incident and also explained the overtact
that was attributed against each of the accused persons. He has also
spoken about the Inspector of Police, coming over to the
Government Hospital and recording his statement which ultimately
was treated as the complaint and FIR was registered. PW1 has also
identified MO1, MO2 and MO3 and the relevant accused persons who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had used these material objects to attack him.
13. On carefully, going through the cross-examination of
PW1, this Court does not find that the evidence of PW1 has been
discredited. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence
of PW1.
14. The evidence of PW1 has been corroborated by the
evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW8. He has stated in
his evidence that he was working in the Government Hospital at
Gudiyatham and that on 02.11.2013, at about 8.05 p.m., the victim
was brought for treatment and he was informed about the attack
made on the victim. Ex.P10 is the accident register that was marked
through PW8 and the injuries that were recorded has already been
extracted supra. On carefully going through the injuries, it is seen
that the same coincide with the overtact that was attributed by
PW1. Accordingly, the evidence of PW8 r/w Ex.P10 corroborates the
evidence of PW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. PW2 is the brother of PW1. He has also spoken about the
overtact of A4, A2 and A1. The evidence of PW2 has also not been
discredited in the cross-examination. It must be borne in mind that
the accused persons belong to the same village and hence, there is
no dispute with regard to their identity and PW1 and PW2 have
categorically deposed about the identity of the accused persons.
16. The incident had taken place on 02.11.2013 at about
18.30 hours. The victim (PW1) was given treatment at about 08.05
p.m on the same day at Government Hospital, Gudiyatham. PW9 had
recorded the statement of PW1 and FIR was registered at about
23.00 hours. This FIR reached the Court on 03.11.2013 at about 4.15
p.m. This Court does not find any undue delay and even insofar as
the arrest and recovery, no serious illegality is found.
17. In the considered view of this Court, the Trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence and has come to the correct
conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reasonable doubts with regard to the offence for which the
appellants were convicted and sentenced. This Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. This
Court is also not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the
accused persons imposed by the Trial Court.
18. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, all the appellants
were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment. In order
to understand the present status, this Court directed the learned
Government Advocate to get instructions from the police officer
belonging to the concerned police station. On instructions, it was
submitted that the atmosphere is peaceful and no further incidents
took place in the village.
19. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the accused persons and PW1 belong to
the same village, this Court is incliend to modify the sentence
imposed against the appellants. Accordingly, insofar as A1, A2 and A4
are concerned, their imprisonment is confined to the period already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
undergone by them. However, each of the accused persons shall pay
a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- to PW1. Similarly insofar as
A3 is concerned, he is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.25,000/-
and the said fine amount shall be paid as compensation to PW1
Victim.
20. The deposit of the compensation amount by A1, A2 and
A4 and the fine amount by A3, each a sum of Rs.25,000/-, shall be
made before the Trial Court on or before 24.04.2023. On such
deposit, the fine amount deposited by A3, shall be paid as
compensation to PW1 victim. The victim PW1 will also be entitled to
withdraw the entire compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Trial
Court.
21. If the appellants (A1 to A4) fails to deposit the
compensation/ fine amount within the time stipulated by this Court,
as a default sentence, they shall undergo one year simple
imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the
extent indicated herein above.
23. Post this case under the caption for “reporting
compliance” on 26.04.2023.
03.04.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
rka
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore,
Vellore District
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
Crl.A.No.833 of 2016
03.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
