Madras High Court
Imran Basha … vs The State Rep. Inspector Of Police on 6 August, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
Imran Basha … Petitioner/Appellant
/Accused
-vs-
The State Rep. Inspector of Police
Hosur Town Police Station
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No. 373 of 2010) ... Respondents /Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file the learned Principal
District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District in Criminal
Appeal No. 23 of 2019 by judgment dated 07.07.2021 and confirming the
conviction and modifying the sentence passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, No.II, Hosur, Krishnagiri District in C.C. No. 32 of 2016 dated
23.05.2019 and set aside the judgment dated 07.07.2021.
For Petitioner : M/s. P.Tamilvel
For Respondents : Mr. P.Sathish, AGP (R1 & R2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner /accused in C.C. No. 32 of 2016 was convicted by the trial
Court for the offence under Section 429 IPC sentenced to 2 years simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal
before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri
District in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2019 and the Sessions Court by judgment
dated 07.07.2021, modified the sentence jail sentence from 2 years to 18 months
confirming the fine. Against which the present Revision.
3. In the Trial Court, PW1 to PW5 examined. Ex.P1 to P8 marked and
MO1 produced.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.05.2010 at about 10.30 p.m.
PW1, the defacto complainant when he was in a cot sleeping in front of his
house. At that time, a 10 months old calf was attacked by the petitioner by using
MO1 stone caused severe injury, later died. PW2 also witnessed the attack by
the petitioner. PW1 lodged a complaint P1 to PW5, who visited the seen of
occurrence prepared P2-observation mahazar, and P7-rough sketch, in presence
of PW3, sent the dead calf for the post-mortem PW4, Doctor, conducted post-
mortem, issued P5-post mortem certificate, confirming the death was due to the
injuries found on the left shoulder, left side stomach and corresponding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
contusions and a tear in the left lung and due to profound bleeding, calf died.
PW5 is the investigating officer, on receipt of complaint Ex.P1 from PW1,
visited the seen of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2-observation mahazar and on
the same day, arrested the accused nearby new Hosur bus-stand and recorded
his confession Ex.P3, on his confession, MO1 was ceased in the front of PW2's
house covered by Mohan Ex.P4. Collected evidence filed charge-sheet. The trial
Court on the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced convicted
the petitioner and the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the
conviction, but sentence modified from 1 years to 18 months.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this
case, PW-1 and PW2 are projected as eye-witness but PW-2 not supported the
case of the prosecution. PW-1 states that it is a village calf donated by the
village panchayat Chief Ramanji Reddy and it used to roam around the village
freely and it was also mischievous, dashing causing injuries to the villagers and
due to which, some of the villagers might have attacked the calf and not the
petitioner. He further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint
and the respondent police reaching the seen of occurrence. The case projected
that the petitioner had motive for the reason that the calf used to come to the
petitioner's cow shed and eat the cow feed, kept for his cattles. But no such
cattle shed shown. In this case, MO1 stone was available in the open space and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
there was no disclosure statement to recover MO1. MO1 from concealment the
calf might had a fall, due to the chase by the villagers, sustained injuries for
which, the petitioner falsely implicated.
6. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the
contention of the petitioner and submitted PW1 and PW2 are the eye-witnesses,
who are from the same village, identity of the petitioner is not in dispute.
Though PW2 had resiled from his earlier statement, PW1 confirms that when he
was sleeping in front of his house at about 10.30 p.m. the petitioner was found
chasing the calf and hitting the calf with stone MO1 causing serious injuries to
the calf, which caused death of the calf within 1 ½ hours after the attack. In the
presence of PW3, observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared, PW4 is the
Vetenary Doctor, who conducted post-mortem had issued post-mortem
certificate confirming the injuries corresponding to the attak of the petitioner. In
this case, all witnesses supported the case of the prosecution except PW2 to
limited extent. The trial court considering the evidence had rightly convicted the
petitioner and the lower appellate court independently considered the evidence
and confirmed the conviction.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
daily coolie, married having two daughters, and he is the only earning member
to his family. The petitioner has got no antecedents of any kind, has no reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
to attack the calf the petitioner subsequent conduct is also without any blemish
and sought for leniency.
8. Considering the submissions and perused the materials provided. The
petitioner by throwing stone MO1, attacked the calf due to which the calf
passed away. In this case, the PW1 is the eye-witness, who lodged complaint
Ex.P1 and PW5 is the investigating officer who visited the seen of occurrence,
found calf dead with injuries, sent the body to PW4 Vetenary Doctor, who
confirmed the death due to injuries. Admittedly, the MO1 recovered in the open
space and not from any concealment. In the seen of occurrence, there are other
residents but except PW1 and PW2, none examined, PW2 not supported the
case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken place at night hours and there
is nothing to show that there was enough light available in the seen of
occurrence. Whether PW1 had witnessed the occurrence with the aid of the
available light it is not clear. In the rough , there is nothing to show that light
was available. The petitioner's contention is that the MO1 is a 700 gram stone,
which is commonly available. As regards MO1 there is contradiction between
PW1 and PW3 recovery witness regarding physical features of MO1. Be that as
it may. In this case, PW1 is the sole eye witness, there is nothing to show PW1
had any animosity against the petitioner. The evidence of PW1, and PW4
Vetenary Doctor and Ex.P5 post-mortem report confirms the death of the calf is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
due to injuries sustained. A voiceless animal done to death. Hence conviction is
sustained, with modification of sentence. This Court considering the petitioner
has got two daughters of young age and he is a coolie, his sentence is modified
to already person undergone and the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs. 50,000/- to the Om Sakthi Temple as donation.
9. Accordingly, the revision case is disposed off.
06.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
NCC: Yes/No
Maya
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Court,
Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District
2. The Judicial Magistrate, No.II,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Maya
Criminal Revision Case No. 860 of 2021
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
