Madras High Court
Subban @ Subramani vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 5 April, 2023
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
Subban @ Subramani .. Appellant/Single Accused
.vs.
State by the Inspector of Police
Virinjipuram Police Station
Vellore District. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.97 of 2013, on the file of
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore
District and set aside the judgment dated 03.01.2017.
For Appellant Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by
the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore in S.C.No.97 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
2013, dated 03.01.2017, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following
manner:
Offence Sentence
Section 204[b] IPC Rs.500/- fine, in default to undergo
three months rigorous imprisonment.
Section 440 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment.
Section 307 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default
to undergo six months rigorous
imprisonment.
Section 436 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in
default to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment.
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and
the period already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be
set-off u/s.428 Cr.PC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a pathway dispute between the
appellant and his brother and their family. On 13.05.2012 at about 03.30 pm., the
appellant is said to have come near the house of PW.1 and had abused PW.1 and his
family in filthy language. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have locked the house
from outside and poured petrol over the thatched shed and lit it with fire. PW.1, his
wife (PW.12), their children PW.1 and P.W.8 were inside the house. They raised an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
alarm and the persons who were in and around the property came and doused off the
fire and opened the door and thereby PW.1 and his family members came out of the
house.
3.After the above incident, PW.1 had given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of
Police at Virinjipuram Police Station. A Panchayat was arranged and PW.1 had accepted
to give up 20 cents of land in the pathway in favour of the appellant.
4.PW.1 thereafter gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk
Police Station on 26.9.2012 at 15.00 hrs. PW.13 on receipt of the complaint (Ex.P.1)
registered an FIR (Ex.P.5) in Crime No.313 of 2012 for the offences u/s 294(b), 436,
307 and 506(ii) IPC. He went to the scene of occurrence on 26.09.2012 at about 16.15
hrs and prepared the Observation Mahazar as Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch marked as
Ex.P.6 in the presence of the witnesses (PW.6 and PW.11). He also recovered MO.1
and MO.2 from the scene of occurrence under Seizure Mahazar marked as Ex.P.3. On
the same day, the appellant was arrested at about 18.00 hrs and he was produced
before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody. PW.13 thereafter
prepared an alteration report (Ex.P.7) and the offence was altered u/s.294(b), 436, 440,
307, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage
and Loss) Act. The investigation officer recorded the statement of witnesses
u/s.161(3) Cr.PC. Ultimately, the final report was laid before the Principal Sessions
Court, Vellorre.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
5.The copies were served on the appellant u/s.207 Cr.PC., and thereafter the
case was made over to the Court below. The Court below on being satisfied that there
are materials to frame charges against the appellant, framed the charges for offence
u/s.294(b), 307, 436, 440, 506(ii) r/w Section 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Property
(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. When these charges were put to the appellant,
he denied the same and pleaded not guilty.
6.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW.13 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and
identified and marked MO.1 and MO.2. The incriminating evidence that was collected
during the course of trial was put to the appellant when he was questioned u/s.
313(1)(b) Cr.PC., and he denied the same as false.
7.The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the
appellant in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal
appeal has been filed before this Court.
8.Heard Mr.EKannadasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.L.Baskaran,
learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the respondent.
9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
10.PW.1 is the brother of the appellant. He has clearly stated in his evidence
that the appellant came near the property on 13.05.2012 at about 3.30 pm, and started
abusing in filthy language. The appellant thereafter locked the house from outside. At
that time, PW.1 was present along with his wife and children inside the house. The
appellant thereafter poured petrol on the thatched shed and lit with fire. On hearing
the alarm raised by PW.1 and his family members, the neighbours came and doused off
the fire and unlocked the door.
11.The evidence of PW.1 has not been discredited and PW.2, PW.8 and PW.12
have also clearly spoken about the incident and it is perfectly in line with the evidence
of PW.1. In view of the same, there is no reason to disbelieve the occurrence and the
involvement of the appellant in the occurrence.
12.The main ground that was urged before this Court is that there was a
substantial delay in lodging the complaint. The incident had taken place on 13.05.2012
at 3.30 pm and whereas the complaint was given only on 26.09.2012 after nearly four
months. The delay has been explained by PW.1 and he has stated that the complaint
was immediately given to the Virinjipuram Police Station and thereafter there was some
compromise between the parties in the presence of the Panchayatdars and PW.1
agreed to give up 20 feet in the pathway in favour of the appellant.
13.The delay in lodging the FIR cannot always result in doubting the case of the
prosecution. The dispute is between the kith and kin and there was some compromise
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
talks and that is the reason why there was a delay. Hence, the delay in lodging the
complaint by itself is not a ground to dislodge the case of the prosecution.
14.The evidence of PW.9 and PW.10 also establishes the fact that there was a
pathway dispute between the appellant and PW.1 and there used to be regular
skirmishes between them. Hence, the previous enmity between the parties has also
been established by the prosecution.
15.PW.1 even in his chief examination and also in the complaint has admitted
that after the incident there was some compromise between the parties on the usage
of the pathway. This compromise will have nothing to do with the criminal offence that
was committed by the appellant.
16.The evidence of PW.7 read with Ex.P.4 clearly shows that the thatched shed
was completely burnt and PW.1 had incurred a loss of nearly Rs.60,000/-.
17.The Trial Court has considered the entire evidence in detail and has come to a
categorical conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts. The findings rendered by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
18.Insofar as the sentence is concerned, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that the appellant had already undergone incarceration for nearly seven months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
and 40 days. The concerned Police Officer, who was present before this Court stated
that the appellant is a coolie and that there was no other untoward incident that took
place subsequent to the present incident. That apart, a peaceful atmosphere is
prevailing in the locality.
19.Taking into consideration the relationship between the parties and the fact
that the parties were able to reach a compromise on the pathway dispute and also
considering the incarceration already suffered by the appellant, the sentence imposed
by the Court below is modified as follows:
Offence Sentence
Section 204[b] IPC Rs.500/- fine, in default to undergo
three months rigorous imprisonment.
Section 440 IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo three months
rigorous imprisonment.
Section 307 IPC Eight months rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default to undergo six months
rigorous imprisonment.
Section 436 IPC Seven months rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and
also to pay compensation of a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to PW.1, u/s.357(3)
Cr.PC, and in default to undergo one
year rigorous imprisonment.
The aforesaid sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the
period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be
set-off u/s.428 Cr.PC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
20.The appellant has already deposited the fine amount and the same is evident
from the order passed by this Court on 04.07.2017 in Crl.MP.No.3008 of 2017 in
Crl.A.No.107 of2017. This fine amount shall be paid as compensation to PW.1. Insofar
as the compensation amount is concerned, the same shall be deposited by the
appellant before the Trial Court on or before 26.04.2023. The total amount of
Rs.54,000/- [fine Rs.4000/- + Compensation Rs.50,000/-] shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by PW.1.
21.In the result, the sentence imposed by the Court below is modified to the
extent indicated herein above and this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
22.Post this case under the caption “for reporting compliance” on 27.04.2023.
05.04.2023
KP
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
To
1.Inspector of Police
Virinjipuram Police Station
Vellore District.
2. Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)
Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Vellore (for information)
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
KP
Crl.A.No.107 of 2017
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
