Madras High Court
Boss @ Subash Chandra Boss vs The State Rep. By Its
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 23.09.2022 Pronounced on: 27 .09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017
1. Boss @ Subash Chandra Boss,
2. Ravindran,
3. Chinnakandhan,
4. Periyakandhan,
5. Narayanan ... Petitioners/Accused
-vs-
The State Rep. by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Muthupettai Police Station,
Thiruvarur District.
Crime No.108 of 2001. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to
revise the judgment dated 19.01.2017 in C.A.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the
Learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur which confirmed judgment dated
11.07.2003 in S.C.No.268 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Assistant Sessions
Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagappattinam.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan, for
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
JUDGMENT
____________ Page No.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused against judgment passed in C.A.No.6 of 2016, dated 19.01.2017 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur and confirmed the judgment passed in S.C.No.268 of 2002, dated 11.07.2003 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.
2. The petitioners were tried and found guilt for the following offences by the trial Court:-
Accused Under Sections
A1 to A5 148 & 324 of I.P.C
A1 147, 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C
A3 148 & 326 of I.P.C
A4 147 & 325 of I.P.C
A5 148 & 325 of I.P.C
3. The conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial Court was challenged before District Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, in C.A.No.6 of 2016 and same to be dismissed, vide judgement dated 19.01.2017.
4. The present revision is filed challenging the judgment of the Appellate Court confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court ____________ Page No.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 in S.C.No.268 of 2002.
5. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.02.2001, at about 8.30 a.m., due to previous enmity, all the accused persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons at Sargunanatha Koil, Idumbavanam Village, with an common intention to commit murder of the defacto complainant Ramakrishnan A-1 cut the head of Ramakrishnan with aruval, A-2 attacked left hand with wooden log, A-3 attacked with iron pipe on his leg, A-4 & A-5 attacked his left leg with wooden log. Due to the above, the complainant sustained grievous injury. A-2 also robbed 2 ½ sovereings of gold chain, which was worned by Ramakrishnan and also robbed a sum of Rs.23,700/- from the bag. Hence, the complaint (Ex.P.1).
6. Based on the above complaint (Ex.P.1), a case was registered in Muthupettai Police Station in Crime No.108 of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 342, 307, 392 r/w 149 of I.P.C against the accused persons (A1 to A5) and taken up the case for investigation.
7. The charges were framed against accused persons as under:-
____________ Page No.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 Accused Under Sections A2, A4 and A5 147 of I.P.C A1 & A5 148 of I.P.C A1 to A5 307 of I.P.C A2 342 of I.P.C A2 & A3 392 of I.P.C A1, A4 & A5 392 r/w 149 of I.P.C
8. The prosecution examined 13 Witnesses, marked 15 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. In defence, one Raja was examined as witness.
9. The trial Court found accused guilty and sentenced them as below:-
Accused Sections Conviction and Sentence passed by the trial Court A1 148 of I.P.C To undergo 3 months R.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default one month S.I. 324 of I.P.C To undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default 3 months R.I. A2 147 of I.P.C To undergo one month R.I and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default, 2 weeks S.I. 326 r/w 149 To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default 3 months I.P.C R.I. A3 148 of I.P.C To undergo 3 months R.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default one month S.I. 326 I.P.C To undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default 3 months S.I. A4 147 of I.P.C To undergo 1 month S.I and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default 2 weeks S.I. ____________ Page No.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 Accused Sections Conviction and Sentence passed by the trial Court 325 of I.P.C To undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default 3 months R.I. A5 147 of I.P.C To undergo 1 month S.I and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default 2 weeks S.I. 325 of I.P.C To undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default 3 months R.I.
10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioners are preferred this revision petition on the ground that, it is alleged that due to previous enmity between the accused persons and P.W.1, the incident has occurred. Whereas, motive of taking disciplinary action against the relatives of the accused persons happened in the year 1994 and the alleged occurrence of robbery and assault took place on 27.02.2001 after 7 years. There is not even a remote connection with the alleged motive and the occurrence. The Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly and the contradictions regarding overt act of the respective accused persons and absence of independent witnesses.
11. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that recovery of Material Objects like Knife, Iron Rod and Wooden log not been properly proved and not been correlate with the accused and the injury sustained by P.W.1. Further, it is contended that, though prosecution has relied upon three X-ray reports to show that P.W.1 has sustained grievous injury. Only three, among six X- ____________ Page No.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 ray reports, contain the patient name and therefore, this creates suspicious.
12. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that P.W.1, who is the Secretary of Primary Co-operative Society, Idumbavanam Village, had previous enmity with Annamalai and Ayyasamy, who were also working as Staff in the said Society. Both Annamalai and Ayyasamy were suspended by P.W.1. Due to that A2 (Ravindran), who is son of Ayyasamy and A1 (Boss @ Subash Chandran Boss), A3 (Chinnakandhtan) and A5 (Narayanan), who were brother-in-laws of Annamalai formed unlawful assembly with weapon. On 27.02.2001, at about 8.30 a.m and attacked P.W.1 with Aruval, wooden log causing grievous injury. Further, 2½ sovereigns of jewels and Rs.23,700/- was robbed from the defacto complainant. This fact has been spoken by P.W.1, the injured. The X-ray report marked as M.O.6 indicates the nature of injury and the Doctor has deposed that P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital, on 27.02.2001 at 11.25 hours. The accident report shows the history of assault by Aruval and wooden log. P.W.1 was referred to P.W.3 the Orthopedic Surgeon Dr.Jayabalan, who on X-ray found that the Tibia and Fibula Bone of the left leg been broken into three pieces. The Accident Register (Ex.P.3) and Wound ____________ Page No.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 Certificate (Ex.P.4) goes to show that these petitioners attacked P.W.1 with wooden log and caused grievous injury. The recovery of money and jewels were not been substantiated by prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has acquitted them for offence under Sections 307, 392 r/w 149 but held them guilty for causing hurt and grievous hurt respectively, using deadly weapon and for forming unlawful assembly. Hence, there is no error in the appreciation of evidence.
13. This Court, on perusing the grounds of revision and evidence let in by the prosecution hold that it is a clear case of assault of causing injuries with weapon. Absence of patient name in three X-ray reports are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the other three X-ray reports the name of the injured P.W.1 is found. The doctor, who treated the victim has spoken about the nature of the injury. The injured person has named each of the accused persons and their overt act causing the injury. Court having found all the five accused were present at the time of occurrence and it is proved that A1 & A3 has attacked the P.W.1 with weapon causing fractured injury, has rightly convicted for their respective overt act. Hence, this Court finds no error in the judgment of the Courts below. ____________ Page No.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below is hereby confirmed. Bail Bond stands cancelled. The respondent is directed to secure the accused persons and committed to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergo shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
27.09.2022
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
To,
1. The Learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.
2. The Assistant Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagappattinam.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN. J, ____________ Page No.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 bsm Pre-delivery judgment made in Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2017 27.09.2022 ____________ Page No.9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis