Jothi @ Madhana Jothi vs State By The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 15936 Mad

Madras High Court

Jothi @ Madhana Jothi vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 8 December, 2023

                                                           1

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 08.12.2023

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                 Crl.A.No.747 of 2017


                1.Jothi @ Madhana Jothi

                2.Loganathan                                                             Appellants
                                                          vs.

                State by the Inspector of Police,
                J-13, Taramani Police Station,
                Chennai.
                (Crime No.641 of 2015)                                               Respondent



                Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal

                Procedure, to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.223 of

                2015 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and set aside the

                conviction and sentence imposed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai

                dated 10.11.2017 in S.C.No.223 of 2015.



                                        For Appellants    : Mr.V.Paarthiban

                                        For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                           2

                                                     JUDGMENT

The above appeal is filed challenging the judgment holding the appellants

guilty under Section 324 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each

towards compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., to the victim.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 13.02.2015, the appellants and

the victim had a wordy quarrel and enraged by the said incident, the appellants

went to the shop of PW1 and asked him to come out of the shop. When PW1

came out of the shop, the 1st appellant by uttering the words “v';fsplkh

jfuhW bra;fpwha;. ,j;Jld; brj;J bjhiy” and attacked the victim on his neck with a knife. The 2nd appellant also attacked the victim with a knife

and when the victim tried to ward off from the said attack, he sustained cut

injury in the middle finger.

3.It is further case of the prosecution that PW2 who is the employee of

PW1 was present and he attempted to prevent the attack and he was pushed

away by the appellants; that he took the victim/PW1 to a private hospital at

Velachery and thereafter to the Government Hospital, Royapettah where he took https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

treatment. PW1 was examined by the police at the hospital and on his

complaint (EX.P1), Inspector of Police (PW10) registered an FIR (EX.P9) for

the offence under Section 307 IPC.

4.After registering the FIR, PW10 commenced the investigation. He went

to the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazer (Ex.P10) and

Rough Sketch (Ex.P11) respectively. He examined witnesses and arrested both

the accused at about 1:00 p.m., on 15.02.2015. On their confession, he seized

the knifes MO1 and MO2. Thereafter, he examined Doctors who had issued

Wound Certificate for the victim and filed the final report before the XVIII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet on 04.04.2015 for the offence under Section

307 IPC.

5.After the appellants were served copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the

case was committed to the Court of V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. The

learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, framed charges under Section

307 IPC against both the appellants.

6.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17

and MO1 & MO2. The appellants did not examine any witnesses and not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

marked any documents.

7.The Trial Court after considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 held

that the appellants had no intention to cause the death of the victim and

therefore, they were not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. The

learned Judge however found that the appellants were guilty of the offence

under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them as stated above.

8.Mr.V.Paarthiban, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that

PW4, an independent eye witness examined by the prosecution, turned hostile

and the other witnesses viz., PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW7 also turned hostile who

had signed as witnesses in the Mahazer and the confession. The learned counsel

submitted that PW8 issued Accident Register (Ex.P7) who was working at

Government Hospital, Royapettah for the victim. PW9 had issued a Wound

Certificate (Ex.P8 ) who was working at Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital. (It

is submitted that Wound Certificate originally issued by PW9 was misplaced

and PW9 had issued another form indicating the wounds suffered by the

victim).

9.The learned counsel submitted that PW2 could not have been the eye https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

witness. His presence has not been spoken to by PW1 while he lodged the

complaint Ex.P1. In the complaint, he had only stated that PW2 came to the spot

after he came to know about the assault on PW1. The learned counsel further

submitted that the evidence of PW1 also cannot be believed as he had made a

false case because he had a grudge against the appellants due to wordy quarrel

that occurred between them on the morning of the 13.02.2015 and he was

injured in a fight at a TASMAC wine shop. The learned counsel therefore

submitted that the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable

doubt.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that

the evidence of PW1 is cogent and convincing. In Ex.P1, the presence of PW2

is recorded. PW1 in Ex.P1 does not rule out the presence of PW2. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that there is no reason why

PW1 should falsely implicate the appellants when he was attacked by some

other third parties and he submitted that Trial Court had rightly convicted the

appellants under Section 324 IPC though the charges were under Section 307

IPC.

11.This Court on perusal of the records finds that the prosecution case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

rests on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 primarily. PW1 is the injured victim.

PW2 is the employer. This Court finds that in the complaint given by the

PW1(Ex.P1), the presence of PW2 is stated. The version in the complaint does

not rule out the presence of PW2. It is the prosecution case that the occurrence

took place outside of the shop of PW2 where PW1 was working. Therefore, his

presence is natural at the place of occurrence. Further, there is no necessity for

PW1 to falsely implicate the appellants. PW1 has stated in clear and categorical

terms that the appellants had attacked with MO1 and MO2. Nothing has been

elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve his version in this case.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Trial Court holding

the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC cannot be faulted and

therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said finding of the guilt.

12.At this juncture, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants may

be considered for release under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958. As there are no previous antecedents and the evidence also suggest that

the incident took place due to wordy quarrel, the learned counsel submitted that

this would be a fit case for exercise of powers of this Court to release the

appellants on probation of good conduct.

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

13.This Court is of the view, on the facts, that the appellants may not be

entitled to benefit of the benevolent provision of Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, this Court can enhance the

fine amount on the appellants in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment and direct

the substantial portion of the fine amount to be paid to the victim as

compensation for the injury sustained by him. It is also seen that the Trial Court

directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards compensation

under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submitted that the

appellants have already deposited the said amount and produced the copy of the

receipts evidencing the deposit made by the appellants before the Trial Court.

14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the

reasons stated above that there are no antecedents against the appellants, this

Court modifies the sentence imposed on the appellants and direct the appellants

to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default to undergo three months

rigorous imprisonment. On such payment of fine, the victim shall be paid a sum

of Rs.40,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs.20,000/- already deposited by

the appellants before the Trial Court. The Trial Court shall ensure that on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

payment of fine, the victim is paid a compensation of Rs.60,000/- totally.

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

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ssr

15.With the above observation, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.

                                                                                         08.12.2023
                Index        : Yes/No
                Internet     : Yes/No
                Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
                Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
                ssr


                To

                1.The V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

                2.The Inspector of Police,
                  J-13, Taramani Police Station,
                  Chennai.

                3.The Public Prosecutor,
                  High Court, Madras.







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