Madras High Court
Gopi vs State on 22 September, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.Appeal(MD)No.108 of 2011
1.Gopi
2.Veerakumar ... Appellants
-vs-
State,
rep.by Inspector of Police,
Pattukkottai Police Station,
Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.110/2010). ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment dated 31.03.2011 by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Pattukkottai in S.C.No.216 of 2010.
!For appellants : Mr.S.Dheenadhayalan
^For respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy,
Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the accused 1 and 2 who are aged 36 and 28 years respectively, at the time when this appeal was filed in the year 2011. Both the accused were found guilty of the offences under Section 342 r/w 34 IPC and Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and both of them were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 r/w 34 IPC, and they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2.According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.05.2010, at about 11.15 p.m., P.W.1 and his friends Subramanian and Rajkumar were attending the temple festival of Soormakaliamman at Surapallam Village. The accused Gopi and Veerakumar (appellants herein) came nearby to them and said that if P.W.1 is eliminated, A-1 will be the great person in the village. P.W.1 is stated to have suffered cut injury on his right hand and also right elbow, but which was aimed at his head. It is alleged that P.W.1 thwarted the cut by using his hands. It is alleged that P.W.1 took treatment in the hospital and the nature of injuries is spoken to by the Doctor. During the questioning, with regard to incriminating evidence, the accused persons have stated that in respect of the incident, they have also preferred a complaint to the Pattukottai Taluk Police Station on 06.02.2010 against the P.W.1 under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC. The consistent case of the appellants herein is that false complaint has been registered against them and the complaint preferred by them has not been investigated properly by the Investigating Officer.
3.In order to support their contention and to establish it is they who got injured in the incident and not the prosecution witnesses, the Head Constable has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the accused.
4.A perusal of the records would go to show that the prosecution has not chosen to file a counter complaint in this case and to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons herein. Pointing out this omission, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that when the origin of occurrence is suppressed by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt have to be given to these accused persons. It is consistently and convincingly pointed out that in any event, the occurrence might have happened only on account of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the prosecution witnesses by commencing the attack on the accused persons. It is pointed out that in the narration of events, the prosecution witnesses did not speak anything about the origin of occurrence. It is pointed out that only in order to suppress the fact that the incident is on account of sudden and grave provocation, the earlier complaint given by the accused persons have been suppressed.
5.Though, it is stated that all on a sudden, the accused persons intercepted the prosecution witnesses and indiscriminately caused injuries, but it is not explained what made the accused persons to do it all on a sudden, is not explained. Time and again it has been repeatedly held that the mere usage of the word would not lead to the conclusion that the accused persons wanted to eliminate P.W.1. In common parlance, that is the language expressed by the village people, but without really attaching any meaning to it. The nature of injuries sustained also would go to show that their intention could not have been to cause death.
6.This incident is said to have taken place on account of the quarrel over the temple festival. Therefore, taken away by emotions and not by reasons, these accused persons seems to have indulged in the occurrence due to sudden and grave provocation. That aspect has not been taken note of by the Court below.
7.The learned counsel for the accused persons have filed a petition for compromise, having been entered into between the accused and the injured witnesses and wanted the Court to record the compromise. The offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, though offence under Section 342 IPC is compoundable. Authorities have been produced to show that the Court can record the compromise if not for the purpose of acquitting the accused, but for the purpose of reducing the sentence imposed on the accused persons. Here is the case where facts and circumstances indicate that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and what is made out is the offence under Section 335 IPC. Section 335 IPC speaks about voluntarily causing grievous hurt. As per Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the offence under Section 335 is compoundable with the permission of the Court.
8.Having regard to the fact that the prosecution witnesses and the accused witnesses are closely related to each other and that they have purchased peace in order to avoid further conflicts, this compromise have to be permitted. Having regard to the long pendency of the appeal itself, pending from the year 2011, and the occurrence having taken place in the year 2010, this Court feels it appropriate that the compromise petition must be allowed and the parties must be allowed to sink their differences so that peace will prevail in the village.
9.During the earlier hearing, when it was reported that the matter had been settled between the parties, but with no terms to the injured witness, this Court expressed the view that having wasted the time of three Courts in handling the deserving cases, the accused must pay the cost to any deserving institution. Accordingly, towards complying with the views expressed by the Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has produced a demand draft drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Pattukottai-614601, dated 18.09.2015, for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid to T.E.L.C.Bethlehem Home for Children, which is an orphanage in the nearby village. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to hand over this demand draft to the concerned orphanage. There is also an undertaking by the accused persons to remain as useful citizens of the village, and the same is recorded.
10.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 335 IPC. The compromise memo filed by the accused persons is taken on file and the accused persons are permitted to compound the offence with the permission having been granted under Section 320 Cr.P.C., in respect of the offence under Section 335 IPC. In view of the compounding of the offence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused persons remain set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Pattukkottai Police Station, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Pattukkottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.