Madras High Court
Jayakumar vs The State Rep. By on 12 August, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
Jayakumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. by,
Inspector of Police,
S2 Airport Police Station,
Meenambakkam, Chennai.
Cr.No.203/2006. ...Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call
for the records and set aside the judgment made in C.A.No.12 of 2018 dated
16.11.2021 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram
at Chengalpattu against confirming the conviction and sentence passed in
C.C.No.809 of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and set the revision
petitioner/accused at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah, GA (Crl. Side)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm )
Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu dated 16.11.2021 made in C.A.No.12 of 2018.
2. By the said judgment, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the finding of guilt of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 332 and 447 of Indian Penal Code. The appellate Court, however, modified the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 332 of IPC as one of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and one of simple imprisonment for a period of one month in respect of the offence under section 447 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.03.2006 at about 6:15 pm., when P.W.1 was in domestic arrival duty, certain persons belonging to a political party came there near the gate and tried to go inside into the security zone. Considering the fact that one person among them was stated 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 to be the MLA, he was left inside, while the others were prevented. The others took exception to the same and got annoyed and picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and P.W.1 was also pushed and shoved and one person also punched in his left side jaw, for which, P.W.1 was treated as outpatient.
4. In his complaint, P.W.1 has stated that the person who punched him on the jaw was later identified as Alandur Jayakumar, the petitioner herein and by naming him and as against the unknown accused, complaint was lodged. On the strength of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.203 of 2006 by the respondent police and the case was taken up for investigation and after completion of the investigation, a final report came to be laid against the petitioner alone, proposing him guilty of the offences under Section 447, 323 and 332 of IPC.
5. The trial Court found that for the very same act of causing voluntarily hurt on the public servant, when the petitioner is charged for the offence under Section 332 of IPC, charging him under Section 323 of IPC was redundant and therefore the said charge was left. The trial court found 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 332 and 447 of IPC and sentenced him. The appellate Court reappraised the evidence in appeal and while confirming the conviction, modified the punishment, aggreived by which, the present revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused would submit that, firstly, even as per the version of P.W.1 and also as per the FIR, being annoyed by not letting in the group of persons, the group of persons became agitated and picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 who was standing near the gate. There is no piece of evidence whatsoever that this petitioner or any other person trespassed into the security zone and therefore, the finding of guilt under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable.
7. As far as the punishment under Section 332 of IPC is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that this accused was not identified by P.W.1. and P.W.1. has admitted in the cross examination that he did not know the name of this accused also. He has mentioned the name of this 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 accused in the complaint as well as before the Court, only because the local police informed that the accused is the person who was identified by them. Further, no other eye witness was examined either to identify that it is the petitioner-accused who punched P.W.1 or that they saw the accused leading the surcharged atmosphere or even his presence was not confirmed by any person. Even P.W.2 only says a group of persons went and he heard the name Jayakumar in the conversation of these persons. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the Courts below have convicted the petitioner only on suspicion and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an acquittal.
8. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that even though ten persons were charged, since the other persons were not identified and the specific version is that one person hit P.W.1 in the jaw and the same was identified as the petitioner, the case was registered and was investigated and charge sheet is filed. The trial Court has categorically found the evidence of P.W.1 believable with reference to causing voluntary hurt and also trespassing into the protected 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 area and therefore, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, there is nothing for this Court to interfere in the matter.
9. I have gone through the material evidence placed on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both side.
10. As far as the offence under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, even as per the evidence of P.W.1, all these persons were allowed to come up to the gate. Even the evidence of P.W.1 is that all these persons demanded him to allow them to enter into the security area and he allowed only one person who said to be the MLA and for that, the other persons picked up a quarrel and even assaulted him. It is not even his case that they entered into the security area after assaulting him. Specifically there is no allegation or evidence that this petitioner trespassed into the protected area and therefore, I am of the view that the finding of the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court regarding the offence under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code is unsustainable and is without any evidence and can be interfered in exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction. 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
11. Insofar as the offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is true that no identification parade was conducted. Whether P.W.1 identified the petitioner in Court or not is also not clear and categorical. However, this Court takes into consideration firstly that in the complaint itself, P.W.1 has stated that after ascertaining the name of the person he has lodged the complaint. While recording his evidence in Tamil, the following is recorded:-
“vdJ jhilapy; Fj;jpa egh; Mye;Jhh; b$af;Fkhh; vd;W bjhpe;jjhy; ehd; nghyprhhplk; ,J rk;ke;jkhf g[fhh; mspj;njd;/ ehd; mspj;j g[fhh; mjrhM ? 1. nghyprhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/”
12. Therefore, though he was not called upon by the Prosecutor or the Court to identify the accused if any present in the Court at the time of his deposition, it cannot be said that he never pointed out the petitioner at all. The Court has to bear in mind that P.W.1 was not knowing Tamil and his evidence is recorded in Tamil. Therefore, in that context, the aforementioned evidence has to be taken into account by this Court. 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
13. Further, the evidence in cross-examination of P.W.1 is as follows:-
“vd;id Tl;lkhf te;jth;fs; jhf;fpdhh;fs; vd;why; 12 nghpy; te;j ,uz;L. K:d;W ngh; vd;id js;sptpll; hh;fs;/ vd;id mjpy; XUth;jhd; ifahy; jhf;fpdhh;/ ehd; btsp khepyj;ij nrh;e;jtd; vd;gjhy; cs;S:h;nghyprhh; brhy;yp vjphpapd; bgah; vdf;F bjhpate;jJ/ ,e;j tptuj;ij ehd; vdJ g[fhhpy; brhy;ytpy;iy/ g[fhhpy; cs;s tptu';fs; vJt[k; vdf;Fj; bjhpahJ vd;Wk; ehd; ifbaGj;J kl;Lk;jhd; nghl;nld; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ nghyprhh; brhy;ypfb; fhLj;Jjhd; vjphpapd; bgaiu ehd; Fwpg;gpl;nld; vd;why; rhpjhd;/”
14. Therefore, a cumulative reading of the evidence of P.W.1, if the trial Court and the lower appellate Court had come to the conclusion that it is trustworthy and inspires the confidence so as to connect the petitioner with reference to the incident, the same cannot be utterly disregarded as perverse or a totally erroneous finding so as to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, I am unable to upturn the finding of guilt with reference to the offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. However, considering the question of sentence, I take into consideration the following facts:-
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022
(i) The petitioner was arrested and thereafter released on bail on the same day.
(ii) The petitioner is now aged about 61 years.
(iii) The petitioner has been facing the trial and subsequent proceedings from the year 2006 for more than nineteen (19) years now and he has also paid the fine amount.
16. Therefore, I am of the view that the punishment in respect of the offence under Section 332 of IPC can be modified as to one with reference to the period undergone and the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- which is already said to have been paid.
17. In view thereof, this Criminal revision is allowed in part on the following terms:-
(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner with reference to the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgement of the trial Court dated 31.01.2018, which was 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 confirmed by the appellate Court, by judgment dated 16.11.2021 stand set aside.
(ii) The conviction of the revision petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code by the judgement of the trial Court dated 31.01.2018, confirmed by the appellate Court, by judgement dated 16.11.2021 shall stand confirmed and the sentence imposed is modified to the extent that the period of custody undergone by the petitioner from the time of arrest until he was released on bail shall be taken as the substantive imprisonment and the fine amount imposed by the Court below shall stand confirmed, since it is said that the fine amount is already paid.
18. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision case stands allowed in part accordingly.
12.08.2025 skt Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
3.The Inspector of Police, S2 Airport Police Station, Meenambakkam, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm ) Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
skt Crl.RC.No.562 of 2022 12.08.2025 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 05:34:44 pm )