Madras High Court
M.Rajkumar vs State Represented By on 10 October, 2014
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T.Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1059 of 2009 M.Rajkumar ... Petitioner vs State represented by Inspector of Police, J.7, Velachery Police Station, Chennai 600 042. Crime No.132 of 2003 ... Respondent Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.3645 of 2003 dated 17.02.2009 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, confirmed in C.A.No.47 of 2009 dated 09.10.2009 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajakumar, Party-in-person For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ***** O R D E R
This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offences u/s.323, 332 and 506(ii) IPC and sentencing him to undergo 3 months S.I. for offence u/s.323 IPC, 1 year R.I. for offence u/s.332 IPC and 6 months R.I. for offence u/s.506(ii) IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2003, at about 12.00 p.m., PW-1 conducted departmental enquiry against this petitioner. During lunch hour, the petitioner entered into PW-1's office, attacked him, caused injuries, abused him in filthy language and threatened him at knife point. Upon the complaint of PW-1, a case was registered in Crime No.132 of 2003 for offences u/s.323, 332 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the respondent and on completion of investigation, a final report was filed before learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The case was tried in C.C.No.3645 of 2003.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, marked eight exhibits and one material object. The accused examined himself as DW.1 and marked nine exhibits. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 3 months S.I. for offence u/s.323 IPC, 1 year R.I. for offence u/s.332 IPC and 6 months R.I. for offence u/s.506(ii) IPC and directed that the sentences run concurrently. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.47 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chennai. Under judgment dated 09.10.2009, the appellate Court, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.
4. Heard the petitioner, party-in-person and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).
5. Petitioner submits as follows:
(i)since the Technical Teachers Training Institute Chennai Society was registered under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975, the petitioner, an employee of such Society, was not a 'public servant' and hence, no offence u/s.332 IPC would stand attracted. PW-1, was not the enquiry officer and Ex.P2, appointment order dated 10.01.2003 issued by PW-2, is a forged document. Prosecution witnesses inimically were disposed towards the petitioner.
(ii)the trial Court has erred in dismissing C.M.P.No.2064 of 2006 filed by the petitioner towards marking the videograph taken during the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, which is essential material to prove his case.
(iii)PW-1, in the complaint, has not informed of abuse or threat meted out by this petitioner. Hence, no offence u/s.323 and 506(ii) IPC would stand attracted.
(iv)PW-8, Doctor, in cross-examination, has admitted that he has not issued any Accident Register. EX.P5, Accident Register, has been issued by Doctor at Royapettah Government Hospital and the prosecution has failed to examine such Doctor.
(v)A Division Bench of this Court, under orders dated 17.08.2011 in W.A.No.724 of 2009, has observed that disciplinary proceedings and charge memos issued against the petitioner were concocted.
Submitting as above, petitioner contends that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and seeks to have set aside the judgments of the Courts below.
6. According to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence wherein the petitioner attacked and caused injury to PW-1, took place during a break in the departmental enquiry against this petitioner on 04.02.2003. The entire proceedings were videographed but the videographing was discontinued during lunch hour. At such time, this petitioner found his way into PW-1s office and set upon him, causing him injury.
7. The prosecution case bristles with infirmities. The complaint preferred by PW-1, marked as Ex.P1, makes no mention of any abuse or threat meted out by petitioner, brandishing a knife. The knife recovered in the case has been seized from PW-7. It is the prosecution case that PWs.6 and 7 were persons who prevented the petitioner from making a get away after the occurrence. It is admitted by PW-6 that this petitioner is the second prosecution witness in case pending before the very same trial Court in C.C.No.6983 of 2004 preferred by one V.Sundar against PW-6. PW-6 is in all likelihood inimically disposed towards the petitioner. Recovery of a knife pursuant to apprehension of the petitioner by PWs.6 and 7 has not been informed in Ex.P1, complaint. PW-8, Doctor, at the Saidapet Government Hospital had been examined to speak of the following injuries suffered by PW-1: (1) contusion of 2 x 1 inches on the left cheek and (2) contusion of 3 x 1/2 inches on the back side of the right hand. It is his evidence that he had first examined PW-1 and referred him to the Royapettah Government Hospital. He has deposed that PW-1 did not inform of having been attacked by this petitioner. He has also admitted that on obtaining report from the Royapettah Government Hospital, he opined that the injuries suffered by PW-1 were simple in nature and the Accident Register containing his opinion, is Ex.P5.
8. This petitioner has examined himself as DW-1. A reading of his evidence informs that it is his consistent stand that he was being victimized and that the prosecution witnesses inimically were disposed to him. There is no proof that injury suffered by PW-1 was caused by petitioner. Petitioner has moved C.M.P.No.2064 of 2006 towards marking the videograph relating to the enquiry, which had been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act. The same was dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the denial of opportunity to petitioner to prove his defence by producing the videograph towards establishing that PW-1 indeed was not the enquiry officer, that the documents produced by prosecution towards establishing such fact were forged and that PW-4 was not the videographer at the enquiry proceedings but such person was one another, has caused him grave injustice. The rejection of relevant evidence by the trial Court and the gross misappreciation by the Courts below has led to the findings of conviction.
This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.47 of 2009 on 09.10.2009 confirming the judgment of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, passed in C.C.No.3645 of 2003 on 17.02.2009. The petitioner is acquitted of all charges.
10.10.2014 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court V, Chennai.
2.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police, J.7, Velachery Police Station, Chennai 600 042.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.T.SELVAM, J.
gm Crl.R.C.No.1059 of 2009 10.10.2014