Madras High Court
Jayaram vs The State Rep. By Its on 12 November, 2024
Crl.RC No.1770 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.1770 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.No.14581 of 2024
Jayaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur Central Police Station,
Tiruppur.
(Cr.No.186/2023) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of
the BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order in Crl.a.No.186
of 2023 dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed
on the petitioner vide judgment in CC No.318 of 2023 by order dated
06.06.2023 by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pandiyan
For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
By consent the main Criminal Revision Case itself is taken up for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disposal.
2. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/A1
against the judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A.No.186 of 2023, dismissing the appeal
and modifying the sentence imposed on him by judgment dated
06.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.318 of 2023 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Tiruppur.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with two
others went to a wine shop on 04.05.2023 at about 11.30 p.m. and
demanded for liquor; that the complainant was an employee in the bar
and since he refused to sell liquor as it was beyond the permitted time of
10.00 p.m., the petitioner abused him in filthy language; that
petitioner/A1 instructed the other accused to murder the person who was
incharge of the TASMAC bar; that A2 had taken an empty beer bottle
and assaulted the complainant; that A1 had attacked another witness with
an empty bottle; and that all the accused threatened the employees of the
bar with dire consequences.
4. The respondent on completion of investigation filed a final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report against all the accused for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b)
323, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC. Before the trial Court, the respondent
examined 10 witnesses viz., PW1 to PW10 and marked 13 documents
viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
5. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the injured
witnesses and the medical evidence found that the petitioner/A1 was
guilty of the offences charged against him and sentenced him as follows:
Offence under Section Sentence imposed
447 of IPC To undergo RI for three months.
294 (b) of IPC To undergo RI for three months.
324 of IPC To undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,500/- in default to undergo SI for one month.
506(ii) of IPC To undergo RI for two and a half years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,500/- in default to undergo SI for one
month.
Sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
6. On appeal, the appellate Court while confirming the conviction
rendered by the trial Court had modified the sentence alone as follows:
Offence under Sentence imposed by the trial Sentence modified by the
Section Court appellate Court
447 of IPC To undergo RI for three months. confirmed
294 (b) of IPC To undergo RI for three months. confirmed
324 of IPC To undergo RI for three years To undergo RI for two years.
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- No fine.
in default to undergo SI for one
month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
506(ii) of IPC To undergo RI for two and a To undergo RI for two years.
half years and to pay a fine of No fine.
Rs.1,500/- in default to undergo
SI for one month.
Sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of remand and sentence
already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off.
Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal
Revision Case.
7. Heard Mr.S.Pandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent/State.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 would submit that the
prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against the petitioner on
account of prior enmity; that no independent witnesses were examined to
prove the occurrence; that the witnesses to the observation mahazar and
seizure mahazar had turned hostile; and that therefore, the conviction
recorded by the Courts below are unsustainable.
9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) per contra
submitted that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable
doubt; that the petitioner/A1 who was in an inebriated condition had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
demanded liqour from the employees of the bar and since they refused to
sell liqour, they were attacked with broken liquor bottles and with hands.
10. This Court finds that the Courts below based on the evidence of
the injured witnesses held that the prosecution had established its case.
Though the Accident Register would show that some of the injured
witnesses did not suffer any external injuries, the evidence of eye
witnesses who sustained injuries cannot be ignored. As regards the
absence of independent witnesses, it is not necessary in all cases to
examine independent witnesses as the occurrence took place inside the
premises of the bar beyond the bar timings where no outsider were
present in the bar.
11. In the light of the evidence of the injured witnesses which is
cogent and convincing, the Courts below rightly found the petitioner/A1
guilty of the offences alleged against him. The petitioner/A1 was unable
to point out any infirmity in the judgments and in any case, they are not
perverse warranting an interference in the above revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. However, considering the nature of the evidence and the nature
of the injuries, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment
for the offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC against
petitioner/A1, can be reduced to 18 months instead of two years.
13. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the petitioner/A1 for the
offences under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC, are modified to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months each instead of two
years each, imposed by the appellate Court. The sentences imposed for
the other offences by the appellate Court are just and reasonable and
hence confirmed. The period of remand and sentence already undergone
by the accused is ordered to be set off.
14. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case
stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
12.11.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral citation: Yes/No.
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate-II,
Tiruppur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur Central Police Station,
Tiruppur.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
12.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
