Madras High Court
Thangavel vs S.Chellapandian on 11 December, 2017
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.238 of 2008
Thangavel ... Petitioner
-vs-
S.Chellapandian ... Respondent
PRAYER: This criminal revision case is filed, under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Karur dated 16.04.2007 made in C.A.No.72 of 2006, modifying the sentence
imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur vide judgment in
C.C.No.20 of 2005 dated 11.09.2006.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Murugesan
for Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam
^For Respondent : Mrs.S.Rajeswari
Legal Aid counsel
:ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner / A1 against the Judgment, dated 16.04.2007, made in in C.A.No.72 of 2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, vide Judgment, dated 11.09.2006, in C.C.No.20 of 2005.
2. The case of the respondent / complainant is that on 18.05.2005, at about 09.00 a.m., one Sethu / Constable had brought him to Vangal Police Station for enquiry with regard to the complaint lodged against him by the third accused, namely, Malarkodi. When the respondent / complainant had gone to the Police Station, the accused 3 to 5, namely, Malarkodi, Dhanalakshmi and Kavithamani were present there and the first accused, namely, Thangavel, who is a Training Sub-Inspector of Police, had abused the respondent / complainant in filthy language, ill-treated and attempted to kick him by his legs. At that time, the accused 4 and 5 had ushered him to kill the respondent / complainant and the second accused had also abused him in filthy language. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent / complainant filed a private complaint, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, alleging that the accused 1 to 5 had committed the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 340 and 506(i) I.P.C., and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, had taken cognizance of the private complaint in C.C.No.20 of 2005.
3. During the course of trial, on the side of the respondent / complainant, three witnesses were examined and no document was marked and on the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined and no document was marked.
4. The learned Trial Judge, after completion of trial and after hearing both sides, by Judgment, dated 11.09.2006, found the accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 guilty for the offence under Section 294(b) and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment; found the accused 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 340 I.P.C., and imposed a fine of Rs.150/- each, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment; found them not guilty for the offence under Section 506 (i) I.P.C., and acquitted them from the said charge and found the third accused not guilty for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C., and acquitted her from the said charge.
5. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them, the accused 1 and 2 had preferred C.A.No.72 of 2006 and the accused 4 and 5 had preferred C.A.No.71 of 2006, before the learned Sessions Judge, Karur.
6. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence and considering the submissions made on either side, the learned Appellate Judge, by Judgment dated 16.04.2007,
(i) allowed the appeal in C.A.No.71 of 2006 preferred by the accused 4 and 5 by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, vide Judgment in C.C.No.20 of 2005 dated 11.09.2006.
(ii) partly allowed the appeal in C.A.No.72 of 2006 preferred by the accused 1 and 2 by confirming the conviction imposed on the accused 1 and 2 under Section 294(b) I.P.C., however reduced the fine amount of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial court to that of Rs.100/- and directed to refund the reduced fine amount of Rs.400/- to the accused 1 and 2.
(iii) set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused 4 and 5 for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 340 I.P.C., further directed to refund the fine amount paid by the accused 1, 2 for the offence under Section 340 I.P.C., and directed to refund the fine amount paid by the accused 4 and 5 for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C.. Challenging the same, the first accused has preferred the present revision.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner / A1 contended that both the Courts below erred in relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, who are interested witnesses and the Courts below failed to note that P.W.1 / complainant had lodged the complaint only to prevent the petitioner / A1 from entertaining the complaint made against him and that the Courts below had failed to see that taking the evidence of the witnesses in entirety, the ingredients of Section 294(b) I.P.C., were not made out and thereby, the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner / A1 for an offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C.
8. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent / de facto complainant submitted that the case of the respondent / de facto complainant has been cogently and convincingly proved by the witnesses and the offence was committed in the Police Station, a public place, and the respondent / de facto complainant was threatened, abused in filthy language and the respondent / de facto complainant was annoyed by the act of the accused and the categorical evidence let in by P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and thereby, the Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner / accused for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C.
9. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent / de facto complainant submitted that even before the Appellate Court, the petitioner / A1 had admitted to his guilt and pleaded for lessor fine amount on the ground that since he being a Government Servant, imposition of fine amount of Rs.500/- and above would affect his service as well as the promotion and therefore, on the undertaking given by him that he would not involve in such offence in future, the fine amount has been reduced by the Appellate Court from Rs.500/- to Rs.100/- in the interest of justice. And, when that being so, the petitioner / accused is not entitled to contest the revision and argue on merits that the Courts have committed error in convicting him.
10. I have heard both sides and carefully gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and the Judgments of the Courts below.
11. A perusal of the depositions would go to show that the respondent / complainant had proved his case by cogent and convincing evidence and his evidence is also corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 3 examined on behalf of him. At this juncture, it would be more relevant to refer the evidence of the respondent / P.W.1, which reads as follows:
?....1k; vjphp vd;id ghh;j;J New;W tur;nrhd;djw;F ,d;Wjhd; tUfpwhahlh cdf;F nuhk;gjhd; jpkpW cl;fhUlh fPNo vd;W nrhd;dhh;. mjw;F ehd; tof;;fwpQuhf ,Uf;fpNwd;. vd;dplk; ,Ue;j vdJ milahs ml;ilia mtuplk; nfhLj;Njd;. mjid ifapy; thq;fp ghh;j;J vd; Kfj;jpy; J}f;fp vwpe;jhh;. GpwF tf;fPy; vd;why; nghpa GLq;fpahlh jhNahyp kfNd vd;W nrhy;ypf; nfhz;L jd;Dila ,Uf;ifapy; ,Ue;J vOe;J mtuJ ifia Xq;fpf;nfhz;L mbf;f Kw;gl;lhh;. mjid ghh;j;j ehd; gae;J eLq;fptpl;Nld;......
12. The respondent / complainant, by categorical evidence, had proved the charge against the petitioner / accused. No evidence had been let in by the petitioner / accused to discredit the evidence of the witnesses on the side of the respondent / complainant. The Courts below had after careful analysis of the evidence and material on record have convicted the petitioner / accused. Moreover, during appeal, the petitioner / accused had admitted to his guilt and pleaded for reduction of fine amount and had given an undertaking that he would not involve in such offences in future. I find that the petitioner / accused has not made any ground for interference by this Court.
13. In the result, the criminal revision fails and it is dismissed and the Judgment, dated 16.04.2007, made in in C.A.No.72 of 2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, dated 16.04.2017, made in C.A.No.72 of 2006 modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, vide Judgment, dated 11.09.2006, in C.C.No.20 of 2005, is confirmed.
To:
1.The Sessions Judge, Karur.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.
.