Madras High Court
Venkatesh vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 19 January, 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/01/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM CRL.R.C.(MD).No.543 of 2009 Venkatesh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.Immanuvel 3.Esakkiappan 4.Ucikkattan ... Respondents PRAYER Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records made in C.C.No.279 of 2005 dated 14.11.2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Padmanaban ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.Muthuvenkatesan For RR-2 to 4 ... Mr.R.Anand ********** :ORDER
***** The revision petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and he has lodged a complaint against respondents 2 to 4. After investigation, the first respondent herein registered a case against respondents 2 to 4 in Crime No.126 of 2005 on the file of Radhapuram Police Station herein and the accused was charged for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded guilty. Each of the accused had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 294 (b) IPC and the accused Nos.1 and 3 had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 323 IPC and the second accused had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 324 IPC. The judgment was delivered by the trial Court on 14.11.2005. The petitioner herein has preferred the revision against the said judgment for the reason that sentence imposed on the accused is insufficient and further, the injury caused to the petitioner was grievous in nature.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three accused/respondents 2 to 4 herein had entered into the house of the petitioner and attacked him with spade and caused several injuries. The petitioner also sustained grievous injuries on his head. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the Accident Register bearing the details of the injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Investigating Officer ought to have filed a final report against the accused for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. But the accused have been convicted only for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he has also relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2009(2)569 TLNJ (Criminal) [V.Subramanian vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Karamadai, Coimbatore & 6 others] and the judgment reported in 2009(1) TLNJ 565 (Criminal) [C.T.Rajendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu through the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil & anr.] and also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 747 [Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka].
4. The Court also heard the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that according to the wound certificate and according to the opinion of the doctor, the victim sustained only simple injury and there was no grievous injury and, therefore, the Court has rightly charged the accused for an offence under Section 324 IPC.
6. The Court considered the submission of all the parties and also perused the records.
7. All the accused have pleaded guilty for the charges framed against them and they have been imposed fine and they have also paid the fine amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the injury sustained by the petitioner on the head was grievous in nature. But, in the copy of the Accident Register filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only mentioned as follows:-
"(i) 7 x 2 cm incised wound over the right parietal region, bone depth, the active bleeding present. Weapon may be heavy cut;
(ii) 5 x 1 cm abrasion on the left cheek; and
(iii) 3 x 2 cm abrasion on the right foot."
But, no opinion is given with regard to the injuries. As per copy of the wound certificate furnished by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the injuries sustained by the petitioner were simple in nature and X-ray of the skull, facial bones, right foot and chest were taken. No internal injury was found. In the said circumstances, this Court feels that according to the opinion of the doctor, the victim, who is the petitioner herein, sustained only simple injuries and, therefore, charges framed against the accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is proper. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in V.Subramanian and C.T.Rajendran's case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since in both the cases, the Court has come to the conclusion that the victim sustained grievous injuries and on that basis only, orders were passed.
8. The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1983 SC 747 [Thippeswamy v. State of Karnataka] has observed as follows:-
"It is obvious that by reason of plea-bargaining, the appellant pleaded guilty and did not avail of the opportunity to defend himself against the charge, which is a course he would certainly not have followed if he had known that he would not be let off with a mere sentence of fine but would be sentenced to imprisonment. It would be clearly violative of Art.21 of the Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he would be let off lightly and then in appeal or revision, to enhance the sentence. Of course when we say this, we do not for a moment wish to suggest that the court of appeal or revision should not interfere where a disproportionately low sentence is imposed on the accused as a result of plea- bargaining. But in such a case, it would not be reasonable, fair just to act on the plea of guilty for the purpose of enhancing the sentence. The Court of appeal or revision should, in such a case, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remand the case to the trial court so that the accused can, if he so wishes, defend himself against the charge and if he is found guilty, proper sentence can be passed against him."
From the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, it is to be seen that if the accused had pleaded guilty and he is sentenced by the trial Court, then it is not proper for the appellate or revisional Court to enhance the sentence. If at all, it is to be done, by way of giving an opportunity to the accused, the conviction itself must be set aside and the case should be remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal.
9. In the present case, the accused have pleaded guilty and they have been sentenced to pay fine as early as on 14.11.2005. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision only in the year 2009 nearly after four years. At this belated stage, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of the trial Court regarding sentence imposed on the accused.
The Criminal Revision is dismissed accordingly.
SML To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.