Madras High Court
P.Kamaraj vs State Represented By on 12 June, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
1.P.Kamaraj
2.K.Karthick ... Petitioners/Appellants/
Accused Nos.1 and 2
Vs.
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Ponmalai Police Station,
Trichy District.
(Crime No.192 of 2015). ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside
the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Trichy, dated 31.07.2018 in C.A.No.69 of 2017, confirming the
Judgment dated 24.07.2017 in C.C.No.77 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment made in
C.A.No.69 of 2017, dated 31.07.2018 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, confirming the Judgment made in
C.C.No.77 of 2016 dated 24.07.2017 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2015 at
about 05.30 p.m., when Accused Nos.1 and 2 were cutting the thorn
plants, one of the victims questioned the same, since the particular
place is under dispute before the trial Court. Therefore, the first and
second accused scolded the victim with filthy language and
assaulted him on his head with an iron rod and also a wooden log.
They also assaulted his father, who rushed to the place of
occurrence, after hearing the noise. At that time, Accused Nos.3 and
4 came to the scene of crime, and they also assaulted the victim
with a wooden log. Thereafter, they also threatened him with dire
consequences and flood away from the scene of crime.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
3.On the complaint lodged by the victim/P.W.1, the
respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.192 of 2015 for the
offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. After
completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report
and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in
C.C.No.77 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.V, Trichy.
4.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution also
marked material objects M.O.1 and M.O.2 and on the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the first accused guilty for the offence under
Section 294(b) of I.P.C and found the second accused guilty for the
offences under Section 294(b) and 324 of I.P.C and Accused Nos.3
and 4 were acquitted from all the charges and sentenced Accused
Nos.1 and 2 to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo 15 days
Simple Imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section
294(b) of I.P.C. The second accused was sentenced to undergo two
years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in
default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. In respect of
the second accused, both sentences shall run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the same, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred
C.A.No.69 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Trichy. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Hence, the present revision.
6.Pending the revision, the first accused died on
22.05.2021 and the Death Certificate was also produced before this
Court. Hence, the entire charges are abated as against the first
petitioner.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that no witness had spoken about the place of the
alleged crime committed by the accused. The Doctor, who treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
P.W.1 and P.W.2, was examined as P.W.9. The evidence of the
Doctor is completely contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.
2. Further, as far as the overt act is concerned, there is absolutely
no specific overt act as against the second accused and as such, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.
The learned counsel further submitted that when the trial Court
found Accused Nos.3 and 4 not guilty, the second accused also
stood on the very same footing and as such, he is also acquitted for
the same benefit as that of Accused Nos.3 and 4.
8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that
both the Courts below concurrently held that the second petitioner
was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b)
and 324 of I.P.C. He also endorsed the fact that the first accused
died on 22.05.2021. Insofar as Accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned,
they were acquitted by the trial Court and the prosecution did not
file any appeal as against the order of acquittal.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
10.It is seen from the records that on 30.04.2015 at
about 05.30 p.m., when Accused Nos.1 and 2 were cutting thorn
plants in the place which is under civil dispute between both the
family members, it was questioned by P.W.1. Immediately, they
scolded him with filthy language and also attacked him on his head
with an iron rod and wooden log. After hearing the noise, P.W.2
came to the place of occurrence and he was also attacked by them
with an iron rod and wooden log. After their noise, Accused Nos.3
and 4 also came to the place of occurrence and they also attacked
the victims P.W.1 and P.W.2 with a wooden rod. According to P.W.1,
Accused Nos.2 and 3 attacked him with an iron rod on his head.
Therefore, he sustained injury on his head. Immediately, after
occurrence P.W.1 and P.W.2 were taken to hospital and P.W.9 treated
them.
11.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 categorically
deposed that P.W.1 sustained injuries at his wrist and right knee.
She further deposed that P.W.1 did not sustain any fractures or
injuries and the sustained by him opined as simple injuries. P.W.2
another victim was also treated by her and stated that he sustained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
injuries on his chest and right knee and both the injuries are also
opined as simple injuries. The wound certificates were marked as
Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. Therefore, the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and
P.W.2 are not corroborated by P.W.9. That apart, P.W.1 categorically
deposed that he was attacked by Accused Nos.2 and 3 by iron rod
and wooden log on his head. However, the trial Court acquitted
Accused No.3 for the reason that he had no specific overt act. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, no witnesses had spoken about the place of occurrence.
All the witnesses had spoken that the place of occurrence is under
civil dispute between the families. In this regard, it is relevant to
extract the provision under Section 294(b) of IPC, which reads as
under:
"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to
the annoyance of others—
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song,
ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
months, or with fine, or with both."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
Admittedly, Section 294(b) of I.P.C is not attracted as against the
second petitioner.
12.It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court
reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs.
Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-
"To prove the offence under Section 294
of IPC mere utterance of obscence words
are not sufficient but there must be a
further proof to establish that it was to
the annoyance of others, which is lacking
in the case."
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and
the allegations are frivolous in nature and the petitioner need not go
for the ordeal of trial.
13.Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the
offence under Section 324 of I.P.C as against the second petitioner.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring the charges under Section
294(b) and 324 of I.P.C to home as against the second accused.
Unfortunately, the appellate Court, without even going through the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
depositions, mechanically confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial Court. Therefore, both Judgments are liable to
be interfered with and the second petitioner is acquitted from all the
charges.
14.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed
and the Judgment made in C.A.No.69 of 2017, dated 31.07.2018 on
the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, confirming
the Judgment made in C.C.No.77 of 2016 dated 24.07.2017 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy, are set aside. The
second petitioner is acquitted. Bail bond if any executed by the
second petitioner shall stand cancelled and a fine amount if paid is
ordered to be refunded to the second petitioner forthwith.
12.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Trichy.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Trichy.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Ponmalai Police Station,
Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.45 of 2019
12.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
