Madras High Court
G.Gnanaruben vs M.Saravanan on 24 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1177 of 2023
G.Gnanaruben ... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.Saravanan
2. Mani
3. Station House Officer,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore N.T.Police Station,
Cuddalore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397(1) read with 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order in Crl.Appeal No.89 of
2019 dated 12.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division,
Cuddalore, dismissed for default in CC.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore dated 03.04.2018 acquitting the Respondents 1 and
2 under Sections 326 and 506(ii) of IPC and allow this Criminal Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muralidharan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
This Criminal Revision has been filed as against the Judgment passed
in Crl.Appeal No.89 of 2019 dated 12.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore, thereby dismissing the appeal as against the
order passed in C.C.No.84 of 2012, dated 03.04.2018, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, thereby convicting the respondents 1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC and imposed fine of
Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- for the respective offences.
2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. The case of the
prosecution is that on 14.11.2021 at about 07.45 a.m, when the petitioner and
his wife were about to fetch drinking water in front of the house of the
respondents 1 and 2, due to previous enmity, they assaulted the petitioner by
iron pipe on his left knee. They also attacked with wooden log. Therefore, the
petitioner sustained fracture on his left knee. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the third respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.617 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324,
326 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the third respondent
filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
4. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined PWs.1 to 13 and
marked Exs.P1 to 9. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no
document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court convicted the respondents 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
undergo four weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b)
of IPC and Rs.1000/- in default to undergo four weeks simple imprisonment for
the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed for default. Hence, this
revision.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner sustained fracture on his left knee and
admitted into the hospital as in-patient for more than 10 days. The prosecution
categorically proved the case of the prosecution. However, due to the nature of
the injury, the Trial Court found the respondents 1 and 2 guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 324 of IPC. However, failed to sentence
them to imprisonment.
6. In order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to order
compensation payable by the respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
Accordingly, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.82 of 2012
is hereby modified to the effect that the respondents 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioner directly, within a period of four weeks from
the today viz., on or before 22.07.2025, and produce the acknowledgment
before the third respondent, failing which the respondents 1 and 2 shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months. If the respondents 1 and 2
failed to pay the fine amount, the third respondent is directed to secure the
respondents 1 and 2 to undergo the sentence imposed by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.
24.06.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division,
Cuddalore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore N.T.Police Station,
Cuddalore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
24.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:31 pm )
