Madras High Court
M.Sampamoorthy ... Revision vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
M.Sampamoorthy ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Bhudalur Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.167 of 2010).
... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to
the Judgment dated 23.06.2017 made in C.A.No.48 of 2016 on the
file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur District, modifying the
Judgment dated 15.09.2016 made in S.C.No.269 of 2012 on the file
of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thanjavur District and
set aside the same and acquit the revision petitioner/accused from
all charges levelled against him.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
ORDER
The revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in C.A.No.48 of 2016, dated 23.06.2017, on the file of the
Principal District Court, Thanjavur District, modifying the Judgment
made in S.C.No.269 of 2012, dated 15.09.2016, on the file of the
Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thanjavur District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 28.09.2010 at
about 09.15 p.m., when the accused was taking tiffin at Thalapathi
Tiffin centre, there was a quarrel and as such, it was informed to
P.W.1. Thereafter, he went to the mess and questioned about the
same. At that time, the petitioner abused P.W.1 with filthy language
and attacked him with Dosa Tawa on his head. Therefore, P.W.1
sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Hospital,
where, the accident register was recorded and referred to the
Government Hospital, Tanjore. After recording his statement, F.I.R
has been registered as against the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 332, 307 and 506(i) 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and the prosecution
also marked M.O.1 and on the side of the accused, no one was
examined, and no documents were marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections
294(b), 332 and 324 of I.P.C and for the offence under Section
294(b) of I.P.C is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo one
month Simple Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default, he shall undergo 12 days Simple Imprisonment, for the
offence under Section 332 of I.P.C is concerned, he was sentenced
to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default, he shall undergo three months Simple
Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C is
concerned, he was sentenced to undergo three years Simple
Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default,
he shall undergo four months Simple Imprisonment and acquitted
him for the offence under Sections 307 and 506(i) of I.P.C.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in
C.A.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Thanjavur District and in the appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
the sentence for the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C and
reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C
from three years Simple Imprisonment to six months Simple
Imprisonment and increased the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.
3,000/-. In so far as the conviction under Section 332 of I.P.C, the
Appellate Court acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Revision.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that there are contradictions between the prosecution
witnesses and, as such, the respondent failed to prove its case
beyond any doubt. The victim was examined as P.W.1, and he
deposed that he received a phone call from Thalapathi Tiffin centre
and thereafter, he went to Thalapathi Tiffin centre. He also
questioned the accused why do you quarrel with others, for which,
the petitioner attacked him with Dosa Tawa. Therefore, he sustained
injuries on his head. Whereas no one was spoken that who informed
him about the quarrel. Admittedly, P.W.1 was the driver in the police
department and as such, he was not all engaged to enquire about
the complaint received by phone. That apart, in the accident
register, he said that he was attacked by a known person. Though
the occurrence had taken place on 28.09.2010 at about 09.15 p.m.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
F.I.R was registered only on the next day, that too only at 03.00
p.m. The accident register was recorded on 28.09.2010 at about
09.15 p.m itself. In fact, it was duly informed to the respondent
Police and even then, the respondent did not register any F.I.R.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
further submit that it is not at all possible to hit P.W.1 by Dosa Tawa,
and it is normally weighing more than 3 to 4 kgs and as such, a
false case has been foisted as against the petitioner due to previous
motive. P.W.1 to P.W.4 are completely contradictory to each other,
and it creates doubt over the entire case of the prosecution. Though
the Doctor recorded the accident register on 28.09.2010 itself, no
F.I.R was registered on that day. It was registered only on
29.09.2010 at about 03.00 p.m. The prosecution failed to explain
the delay in registering the F.I.R. even after receiving information
from the Hospital as alleged by P.W.5, who had brought the victim
to the Hospital.
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that
P.W.1, while working as a Head Constable/driver in the police
station, received a phone call and immediately, he went to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
Thalapathy Tiffin Centre. He had seen that the petitioner quarrelled
with other customers. When it was questioned by P.W.1, he abused
him with filthy language and attacked him with Dosa Tawa, due to
which, he sustained grievous injury on his head. Immediately, P.W.5
had taken him to the Hospital, and he was given first aid thereafter,
he was referred to the Government Hospital, Tanjore. Though the
injury sustained by him was small in nature, the petitioner had
committed an assault on the victim, who was the Head Constable at
the time of the crime. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the
petitioner for the offences under Section 294(b), 332 and 324 of
I.P.C, however, the Appellate Court modified the same and as such,
it does not require any interference by this Court.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
9.On 28.09.2010, at about 09.15 p.m., when P.W.1
came to Thalapathi Tiffin Centre, where the petitioner was
quarrelling with other customers, he questioned him about the
quarrel. The petitioner immediately had taken Dosa Tawa and hit
P.W.1 on his head. Due to which, he sustained an injury, and was
immediately taken to the Hospital by P.W.5. P.W.7, who had treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
the victim and recorded the accident register, which was marked as
Ex.P.4.
10.On perusal of Ex.P.4, P.W.1 stated that he was
attacked by one known person, while he was coming out from
Thalapathi Tiffin Centre. It was recorded at about 09.15 p.m on
28.09.2010. P.W.1 was brought to the Hospital by P.W.5, who was
also taking tiffin in Thalapathi Tiffin Centre at the time of
occurrence. However, he did not even whisper that the petitioner
quarrelled with other customers in Thalapathi Tiffin Centre.
According to P.W.1, he had received a phone call from Thalapathi
Tiffin Centre and thereafter, he went to the Police Station for
enquiry.
11.Admittedly, P.W.1 was working as a driver with the
same police station and if at all any phone call was received for the
untoward incident, P.W.1, who was a driver at that juncture, would
not have been allotted duty to conduct enquiry. That apart, if at all
any quarrel in Thalapathi Tiffin Centre with another person, the
prosecution witnesses deposed that there was a quarrel between
the petitioner and other customers. There is no iota of evidence
produced by the prosecution that already the petitioner quarrelled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
with another customer and the same was informed to the
respondent police station and on receipt of a such phone call, P.W.1
was engaged to conduct enquiry. In fact, the owner of Thalapathi
Tiffin Centre was examined as P.W.2. He deposed that at the time of
taking tiffin by the petitioner, P.W.1 came to the Tiffin Centre and
there was a quarrel between the petitioner and P.W.1. Due to the
said quarrel, he had sustained injury on his head and immediately,
he was taken to the Hospital by P.W.5. It seems that there was no
quarrel between the petitioner and any one of the customers. P.W.1
being the driver, went to Thalapathi Tiffin Centre for taking Tiffin. At
that juncture, there was a quarrel between them and as such, the
petitioner had beaten him with Dosa Tawa and as such, he sustained
injury on his head. It is also seen that though P.W.7 had recorded
the accident register and reached the police station on the same
day, the respondent failed to register any F.I.R on the same day. It
was registered only on the next day, ie., on 29.09.2010 at about
03.00 p.m. However, the wound certificate, which was marked as
Ex.P.7 revealed that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 were simple in
nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
12.Considering the above facts and circumstances,
though this Court does not incline to set aside the conviction,
inclined to reduce the sentence.
13.In view of the above, the conviction imposed by the
Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 is
hereby confirmed. Insofar as the sentence imposed by the Appellate
Court is hereby modified to the period which was already undergone
by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed.
27.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Assistant Sessions Court,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Bhudalur Police Station,
Thanjavur 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.2 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.2 of 2018
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
