Madras High Court
Arulanandam vs The State Rep. By on 12 December, 2018
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.12.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.[MD]No.150 of 2012
1.Arulanandam
2.Devaurakkam : Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Uvari Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.51 of 2007) : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the
judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.133 of 2011 dated 09.01.2012
on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract Court No.II,
Tirunelveli, by partly confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in
S.C.No.3 of 2008 dated 23.08.2011 on the file of learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Valliyoor.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Appavu Rethinam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulingha Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
-----
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment dated 09.01.2012 made in C.A.No.133 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract Court No.II, Tirunelveli.
2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
3.According to the complainant, the petitioners caused injuries to their goats and when they questioned the same, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties, followed by which, the revision petitioners/accused attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3 using Aruval and caused injuries to them. Therefore, they lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent / Police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2007 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 429, 324, 307 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file as P.R.C.No.57 of 2007 and the same was committed to the Sessions Court. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.On committal to the Sessions Court, charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 429, 324, 307, 294(b) 323 read with 149, 324 read with 149 and 307 r/w. 149 IPC and the revision petitioners and other accused pleaded they are not guilty.
5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.15 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and 5 material objects were exhibited as MO.1 to MO.5. After completing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence culled out from the prosecution witnesses have been put forth before the revision petitioners and other accused and was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Though revision petitioners and other accused denied them as false evidence, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the revision petitioners.
6.After hearing the arguments on both sides and also considering the materials placed before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the trial Court found the revision petitioners and other accused guilty and convicted the revision petitioners and other Accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Assistant Sessions Court, the convict has preferred the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.133 of 2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract Court No.II, Tirunelveli.
7.After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found that the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 r/w.149 and 307 r/w 149 against the accused Nos. 3 to 5 have not been proved. However, the Court found that the offence under Sections 294(b), 429 (2 counts) and 307 IPC as against the 1st revision petitioner / Accused No.1 has been proved and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of seven years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year for having committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and a sentence of Rs.200/- fine for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC in default one week rigorous imprisonment and a sentence of Rs.500/- fine for the offence under Section 429 IPC, each count in default one month rigorous imprisonment. The offence under Sections 294(b), and 307 IPC as against the 2 nd revision petitioner / Accused No.2 has been proved and the Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to http://www.judis.nic.in 5 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for having committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and a sentence of Rs.200/- fine for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC in default one week rigorous imprisonment. Against which, the revision petitioners has preferred the present revision. Now the convicts alone has preferred the present revision case. No appeal or revision case has been filed by the prosecution or victim. Therefore, this Court is restricted to the offence only against the present revision petitioners.
8.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st revision petitioner died. Even though sufficient opportunity given, no proof of death has been filed and also he would further submit that in this case, the original complaint was suppressed by the prosecution. According to P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.6 took the injured to the hospital. They have stated that before going to the hospital, they went to the police station, wherein they gave information which was reduced into writing by the police officials. Thereafter, they went to the hospital and this complaint was suppressed by the prosecution. They have taken the cognizance only based on the statement recorded in the hospital, therefore the original complaint said to have been filed by the complainant before the police has not been disclosed and the same was suppressed http://www.judis.nic.in 6 which was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, in this case the weapons have not been recovered. Therefore, under these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible, the views are favourable to the accused to be considered and benefits of doubt has to be extended. Therefore, both the Courts below failed to consider the aspects and convicted the revision petitioners. Though the trial Court convict the accused, the appellate Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 and partly confirmed the order of the Trial Court which warrants interference of this Court.
9.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that in this case motivation has been clearly proved and the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 used Aruval and caused injuries to the victim P.W.1 to P.W.3. In the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they have clearly stated that the revision petitioners caused injuries to them. P.W.12 Doctor evidence has clearly shows that the victim P.W.1 and P.W.2 sustained incise injury. Therefore, they have given explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. Since, they sustained incise injury, they were brought to the hospital first. After receiving information from the hospital, the respondent police obtained statement from the victim and thereafter, registered a http://www.judis.nic.in 7 case. The delay in registering the complaint has also been properly explained by the prosecution and that is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The Accident Register reveals that they have been attacked with Aruval by two known persons. Therefore, the appellate Court considered this aspect and convicted the revision petitioners / A1 and A2 and the prosecution proved the case through the injured witnesses as well as independent witness also with medical evidence and wound certificate. Therefore, both the Courts rightly appreciated the case of prosecution witness and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and there is no merit in the revision.
10.Heard and perused the records.
11.The case of the prosecution is that due to motive with regard to causing injuries to the goats, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties and therefore, the revision petitioners took Aruval and assaulted P.W.1 to P.W.3 and caused injuries to them. On reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, they have clearly stated that on 26.05.2007 when they questioned regarding the injuries of their goats, the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 along with other accused took the Aruval and attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3. P.W.1 sustained cut injury in right hand wrist, cut injury in the right http://www.judis.nic.in 8 hand middle finger and right hand pinkie (little finger) amputated. P.W.2 Lingam sustained abrasion injury over the right side head top. P.W.3 Samuthiram sustained cut injury in right backside shoulder, cut injury in right side lower back hip and cut injury in the right side face from eyes to lips. P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly spoken about the occurrence. Ex.P.9 Accident Register shows that two persons on 26.05.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. attacked by Aruval and also they sustained the above said injuries. Therefore, cogent reading of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W. 10 Doctor clearly reveals that the revision petitioners caused injuries to P.W.1 to P.W.3. Therefore, it is not the case of the defence that unknown persons were attacked and since they are all residing in the same village and they are known to each other and due to motive, there was a wordy quarrel between them, subsequently, they have attacked with Aruval and therefore, there is no dispute with regard to identification of the person and also the weapons used. Under these circumstances, this Court found that the petitioners/ accused committed offence under Sections 294(b), 429 (2 counts) and 307 IPC.
12.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the earlier complaint said to have been given to the police was suppressed and also there is a delay in registering the case and weapons http://www.judis.nic.in 9 have not been recovered, mere non-recovery of weapons is not fatal to the case. The eye witnesses clearly spoken about the accident. Mere suppression of earlier complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, as already stated, the accused and victims are known persons and also a suggestion made by the defence that due to motive, the revision petitioners attacked the victim P.W.1 to P.W.3. Though the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 have stated that immediately after the occurrence they went to hospital, since there was a over bleeding they were advised to go to the hospital. According to the complaint, immediately after the occurrence, they made a complaint. Mere non- production of the earlier complaint and delay in registering the case is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Mere defective investigation will not go to the route of the case. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.12 Doctor and also the first available documents Accident Register Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 clearly shows that the petitioners attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3 with Aruval and caused injuries to them. Therefore, mere defect in investigation will not go the route of the case and the accused are not liable to be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation. Under these circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is not acceptable.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
13.From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 copies of wound certificate and Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 copies of the Accident Register show the injuries sustained by the victim P.W.1 to P.W.3. The injuries sustained by P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been proved through the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor. Therefore, the medical evidence is supporting the prosecution case. The first available documents clearly shows that the revision petitioners / accused had committed the offence and the same has been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no perversity in appreciating the evidence. This Court has also found that there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by the Appellate Court. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Appellate Court is confirmed and there is no reason to take a different view by this Court. There is no merits in this revision.
14.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
12.12.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RM
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Additional Sessions Court,
Fast Tract Court No.II,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Valliyoor.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
RM
Crl.R.C.[MD]No.150 of 2012
12.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in