Madras High Court

Bentick Raja @ Raja vs State Rep By on 15 May, 2025

                                                                                      Crl.A(MD)No.15 of 2018

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                        Reserved On               : 17.12.2024
                                       Pronounced on : 15.05.2025

                                                       CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                         CRL.A.(MD)No.15 of 2018
                     1.Bentick Raja @ Raja

                     2.Arockiasamy                                                   ... Appellants
                                                            vs.
                     State rep by
                     The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                     Nilakottai Sub-Division,
                     Nilakottai Police Station,
                     Dindigul District.
                     (Crime No.161 of 2016)                                          ...Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the
                     conviction and sentence passed in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2016 dated
                     18.12.2017 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
                     Didigul.
                                  For Appellants       :Mr.S.Sekar


                                  For Respondent :Mr.M.Sakthikumar
                                                  Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                   *****


                     Page 1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )
                                                                                          Crl.A(MD)No.15 of 2018

                                                        JUDGMENT

The accused in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file learned

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Didigul have filed

this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and

sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated

18.12.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2016, by the learned Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.


                        Sl. Accused         Offence                   Sentence of Imprisonment
                        N No.               Punishable                and fine
                        o                   under Section
                        1         A1        324 of IPC                1    year    of      Rigorous
                                                                      Imprisonment and to pay a
                                                                      fine of Rs.15,000/-, in
                                                                      default, to undergo 6
                                                                      months                 simple
                                                                      imprisonment. Out of the
                                                                      fine amount of Rs.15,000/-
                                                                      and Rs.10,000/- is ordered to
                                                                      be      paid      to     P.W.
                                                                      1/Alagupandi               as
                                                                      compensation            under
                                                                      Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
                        2         A2        323 of IPC                To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
                                                                      in default, to undergo 3
                                                                      months               simple
                                                                      imprisonment.








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

2.On 13.04.2016 at about 15.30 hours, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were

travelling on a Hero Splendor Bike bearing registration No.TN-57-

AY-8365 to Poonangulam Reservoir and at that time, the

appellants stopped and questioned them and abused them with

filthy language by using their caste name. The second appellant

asked the first appellant to bash up P.W.1, and therefore, the first

appellant attacked P.W.1 with an aruval on his hand and head

and caused injuries. The second appellant also attacked P.W.1

with sticks and ran away from the scene of the occurrence. P.W.2

and P.W.3 also for cover from the place of occurrence on seeing

the attack on P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a complaint before

the respondent police. Pursuant to which, the respondent police

registered a case for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii)

of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as against the

first accused and for the offences under Section 294(b), 323 and

506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

3.After investigation, the investigating officer filed a final

report before the Judicial Magistrate Nilakottai and the same was

taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C.No.13 of

2016. After furnishing copies of records to the appellants under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions. The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, took up the case

in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2017 and framed necessary charges and

questioned the appellants under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and they

pleaded not guilty and denied the charges and their involvement

in the offence and stood for trial.

4.The learned trial Judge conducted the trial by examining

10 witnesses on the side of the prosecution as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and

marking 7 Exhibits as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and questioning the

appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

and the appellants simply denied the allegations and neither

examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

5.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, after

analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both

sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the

appellants beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the first

accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and the second

accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and acquitted

them for the offence under Sections 294 (b), 506(ii) of IPC and

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Challenging the same,

present appeal is filed by the appellants.

6.The learned counsel for the appellants made the

following submissions:

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that

when the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused under Sections

294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

on the basis of the same evidence, the conviction under Sections

323 and 324 of IPC is not legally sustainable. He also submitted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

that there was a delay in registering the case, and the same was

not properly explained. According to the prosecution, P.W.4

videotaped the entire incident through his mobile phone, but the

same was not produced. Hence, there is a doubt over the presence

of witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 at the scene of occurrence.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the

following submissions:

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit

that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the material

evidence and also corroborated by the witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3,

and the independent witness P.W.4. The doctor also deposed

about the injuries caused during the incident. Hence, the learned

trial Judge correctly convicted the offence under Section 324 of the

IPC and, by considering the nature of the injuries, awarded one

year of rigorous imprisonment and also convicted the second

appellant for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and

sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In the said

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the judgment.

8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and

perused the materials available on record.

9. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and

perused the materials available on record and also the precedents

relied upon by them.

10. The question in this case is whether the prosecution has

established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the

appellant and the Learned trial judge's conviction and sentence is

sustainable or not?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

11. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the injuries caused by the

appellants; and the same is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2,

P.W.3, and P.W.4. P.W.4 clearly deposed about the injuries caused

by the first appellant, and he specifically deposed about the

assault made by A1 on P.W.1 with an aruval on his head and left

hand. He also clearly deposed about the injuries caused to P.W.1

by the second appellant with a stick. In the said circumstances, the

evidence of P.W.4 is cogent and also corroborated by the evidence

of P.W.1. The medical evidence also corroborated the oral

evidence. The doctor who was examined the side of the

prosecution assuredly deposed about the injuries, and also stated

that he was hospitalized from 13.04.2016 to 21.04.2016. In view of

the said circumstances, this Court finds no merit to reject the

evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.

12.It is true that the learned trial Judge acquitted the

appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the

IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 but it is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

a ground to acquit the appellant under Sections 323 and 324 of the

IPC when the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is cogent and the same

was corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no legal bar to

convict the appellant for the porved offences, even though the

accused were acquitted under other charges.

13.In view of that, this Court is inclined to confirm the

conviction under Section 324 of IPC as against the first accused

and under Section 323 of IPC as against the second accused. So far

as the question of sentence is concerned, the occurrence had taken

place in a spur of the moment, and hence, considering the age of

the appellants, this Court is inclined to reduce the substantive

sentence and inclined to enhance the fine amount.

14.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on

the following terms:-

14.1.The conviction and sentence under Sections 323 and 324

of IPC passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )

Dindigul, dated 18.12.2017, in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2016, is hereby

confirmed;

14.2.In respect of the conviction passed against the first

accused in Spl.S.C.No.96 of 2016 by the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Dindigul District, dated 18.12.2017, for the offence under

Section 324 of IPC the sentence of imprisonment to undergo 1

year of Rigorous Imprisonment is hereby reduced to one month of

Rigorous Imprisonment, with a direction to pay compensation of

Rs.50,000/- to P.W.1 within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise, the sentence of

imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Judge shall

automatically be restored.

14.3.In respect of the second accused, the conviction and

sentence under Section 323 of IPC is hereby confirmed.




                                                                                               15.05.2025
                     Index             :Yes / No
                     Internet          :Yes / No
                     NCC               :Yes / No
                     sbn






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 12:53:22 pm )





                     To