Madras High Court
Haris Ravi vs State on 1 June, 2023
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
Haris Ravi ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
State,
Represented by,
Nazereth Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.164 of 2012. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call
for the records in S.C.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thoothukudi and set aside the Judgment in S.C.No.96 of 2015,
dated 02.02.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinayagan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment
passed in S.C.No.96 of 2015, dated 02.02.2016, on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila
Court), Thoothukudi, thereby convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant is the Panchayat President of Kadaiyanodai Village. The
first accused had demolished the channel and had made a pathway
in order to draw water from the field of one Paul from the Well.
Therefore, the defacto complainant, who is being the President of
the said Village, has questioned the same. Due to the said enmity
on 14.09.2012 at about 04.50 p.m., when the defacto complainant
was in the Panchayat office, accused persons trespassed into her
office with sticks in their hands and the first accused abused her
with filthy language and also shouted that she had closed his dyeing
unit and also preventing him from drawing water and attacked her
with sticks. Therefore, she sustained injury. When she prevented
the attack with her both hands, she sustained injuries on her right
palm and fingers and also threatened her with dire consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
Thereafter, they also damaged the tube lights, chair, table,
telephone which were in the office to the tune of Rs.4,950/-. Hence,
the complaint.
3.On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent
registered the F.I.R in Crime No.164 of 2012 against the accused for
the offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 325, 307 and 506(2) of
I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completion
of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same
has been taken cognizance by the trial Court and framed charges
against the first accused under Sections 452, 294(b), 325, 307 of
I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and framed
charges against accused Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 452, 294(b)
and 506(2) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The
prosecution also produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 and on
the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents
were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the appellant alone guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced him to
undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three weeks Rigorous
Imprisonment. Hence, the present Appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised
the ground that even according to the defacto complainant, the
accused persons trespassed into her office with sticks and abused
her with filthy language, another eyewitness deposed that one
person trespassed into the office and that too with helmet.
Therefore, the accused was not identified by any of the witnesses,
as such, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.
P.W.1 also categorically stated before the Doctor, who treated her,
that she was attacked by only one person with sticks. She did not
even whisper about the alleged two persons, who allegedly
trespassed into her office. Except P.W.1, no other witnesses had
supported the case of the prosecution in order to bring the charges
to home. Only due to previous enmity between the appellant and
the defacto complainant, a false complaint has been foisted as
against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that
while P.W.1 was President of Kadaiyanodai Village, the appellant
completely damaged the entire channel while drawing water from
the Well. It was questioned by P.W.1. Therefore, there was enmity
between them. The appellant herein along with other accused
persons trespassed into the Panchayat office and attacked P.W.1.
Therefore, she sustained grievous injuries. The victim's evidence is
trustworthy and cogent. Therefore, the trial Court, believed the
evidence of P.W.1, had rightly convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
9.Admittedly, the defacto complainant was the
Panchayat President of Kadaiyanodai Village at the time of
occurrence. The appellant had drawn water from the Well owned by
one Paul with the help of a lorry by damaging the channel while
making pathway. Therefore, it was questioned by P.W.1 and as such,
the appellant was angry with her. While being so, on 14.09.2012 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
about 04.50 p.m., when P.W.1 was in her office, the appellant and
two other accused persons trespassed into the office with sticks.
They also scolded her with filthy language and P.W.1 was attacked
by the appellant with sticks. When it was prevented by her hands,
she sustained grievous injuries on her hands. The other witnesses,
who were present in the Panchayat office, turned hostile. However,
the victim was examined as P.W.1 and she categorically deposed
that the accused persons trespassed into her office and the
appellant had attacked her with sticks. Therefore, she was
prevented by her hands and she sustained injuries on her both
hands. He also scolded her with filthy language and repeatedly
attacked her. The appellant also caused damage to the office
furniture to the tune of Rs.4,950/-. Though other witnesses turned
hostile, P.W.1 went to the Government Hospital, Srivaikundam. P.W.
10 treated her and found the following injuries:-
“1.rpije;j fhak;> fl;il tpuYf;Fk;
Ms;fhl;o tpuYf;Fk; eLtpy; 5 X 2 X 2br.kP
mstpy; ,Ue;jJ.
2. tyJ cs;sq;ifapy; nky;g[wj;jpy;
Ms;fhl;o tpuypd; mog;gFjpapy;
3 X 2 X 2 ,Ue;jJ.
3. tPf;f fhak; tyJ Kd;dq;ifapy;
fPH;g[wj;jpy; 4 X 4 brkP mstpy; ,Ue;jJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
4.tPf;f fhak; 4 X 4 br.kP mstpy; ,lJ
Kd;dq;ifapy; gpd;gFjpapy; 3 X 3 br.kP
mstpy; ,Ue;jJ.
5.tPf;f fhak; ,lJ Kd;dq;ifapy;
mog;gFjpapy; 6 X 4 br.kP mstpy; ,Ue;jJ.”
10.Therefore, P.W.10 referred her for higher treatment
to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. Due to the said injuries,
she had fracture on both hands and opined that those injuries are
grievous one. She also registered the accident register, which was
marked as Ex.P.4. P.W.1 categorically stated that a known person
attacked her with sticks, due to which, she sustained injuries.
Though the appellant trespassed into the Panchayat office along
with other accused persons, the appellant alone possessed sticks
and attacked her. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted other
accused persons and convicted the appellant alone for the offence
punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. The prosecution also proved
the previous enmity between P.W.1 and the appellant. P.W.1
categorically and cogently deposed in order to bring the charge
under Section 325 of I.P.C to home. Hence, the prosecution proved
the case beyond any doubt and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
11.Now, P.W.1 died, due to her illness. The appellant is
also ready and willing to pay compensation for the injuries sustained
by P.W.1 to her legal heirs, since it is a compoundable offence.
12.Considering the above facts and circumstances, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone for the offence under
Section 325 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the order of conviction passed by
the trial Court for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C is hereby
confirmed. Insofar as the sentence of two years of imprisonment is
modified as compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and
Fifty Thousand Only) to be paid in favour of the legal heirs of P.W.1
by the appellant on or before 26.06.2023, by way of deposit to the
credit of the trial Court in S.C.No.96 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila
Court), Thoothukudi. On such deposit, the legal heirs of P.W.1 are
permitted to withdraw the same. If the appellant failed to deposit
the said amount, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is hereby
restored without further reference to this Court and the respondent
is directed to secure the appellant to serve the remaining period of
sentence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
01.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethimandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thoothukudi.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).No.46 of 2016
01.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
