Madras High Court
Tamilselvan vs State Represented By on 13 September, 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13/09/2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
1.Tamilselvan
2.Duraimurugan : Appellants/A1 and A2
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thilai Nagar Police Station,
Thiruchirappalli District.
(Crime No.437 of 2012) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the
judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Thiruchirappalli, in SC No.81 of 2014, dated 22/02/2018 and
acquit the appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
J U D G M E N T
This Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruchirappalli, in SC No.81 of 2014, dated 22/02/2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 12/10/2012 at about 09.15 pm at Thillai Nagar, 3rd Cross Street in the Royal Pearl Hospital, the relative of the accused namely Ganesan who was admitted for treatment for consuming poison, expired even though treatment was given in the hospital. On the fury, the accused persons using abusive language against the Doctor who gave treatment and broken the door glasses of ICU Ward, plastic chairs and caused damage to the tune of Rs.6,150/-. Upon the occurrence, a case in Crime No.437 of 2012 by the respondent police for the offence under sections 294(b), 353 IPC and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was registered. After completing the formalities of investigation, filed a final report and it was taken cognizance in SC No.81 of 2014 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings framed the charges for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 353 IPC and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act against the accused persons.
3.The following charges were framed against the accused persons:-
(i)On 12/10/2012 at about 09.15 pm, the deceased Ganesan, who is the relative of the accused persons admitted in the Royal Pearl Hospital, Trichy; But in spite https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 of treatment, he died in the hospital; On the fury, the accused persons abused the Doctor, who treated the deceased in filthy language. So, both the accused are charged under section 294(b) IPC.
(ii)In the course of the above said
occurrence, the accused persons caused
damage to the wind glasses and plastic
chairs in the ICU Ward to the tune of
Rs.6,150/-. So, both the accused persons are charged under section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act.
(iii)After the above said
occurrence, when the police officials
taking the body for the purpose of
postmortem, the accused persons prevented the police from doing their duty. So, both the accused are charged under Section 353 IPC.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4.On the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked. Apart from that, 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.
5.The de-facto complainant is practising medicine and running a hospital called 'Royal Pearl Hospital'. On 12/10/2012 at about 09.15 pm, he was attending the patient, in the OP Ward. Noise came from the II Floor. He immediately rushed to that spot. At that time, he found a patient called 'Ganesan' dead. Dr.Sathishkumar was attending, the accused persons pushed down the Doctor, who treated Ganesan. At the same time, they caused damage to the glass in the ICU Ward and damaged the chairs. Since tension prevailing, he immediately rushed to the police and lodged a complaint against the accused persons.
6.On the basis of the complaint a case in Crime No. 437 of 2012 was registered for the offences under sections 294(b), 353 IPC r/w 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, by PW8/Sahul Hameed who was working as Sub Inspector of Police, on 12/10/2012. The printed FIR is marked as Ex.A4.
7.Further investigation was undertaken by PW10/ Inspector of Police attached to Thillai Nagar Police Station. On 13/10/2012 at about 03.00 am, he visited the place of occurrence and in the presence of the witnesses, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 he prepared parvai mahazar, rough sketch. From that place, he collected glass pieces and broken chairs under Ex.P7. The glass pieces and broken chairs are marked as MOs.1 and MO2. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained damage certificate under Ex.P9. After completing the investigation, filed a final report charging the accused under sections 294(b), 353 IPC and section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.
8.PW2 was the Operation Theatre Assistant in the occurrence Hospital. He also witnessed the occurrence.
9.PW3 is also one of the Operation Theatre Assistant. But he did not witnessed the occurrence.
10.PW4 is another Doctor working the in the Hospital and he is also witnessed the occurrence.
11.PW5 was present when the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch, recover the damaged glass pieces and plastic chairs portion.
12.PW6 is also another Doctor working in the very same hospital and he also witnessed the occurrence. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
13.PW7 took the photos of the scene of the occurrence.
14.After completing the investigation, PW10 laid the charge sheet against the accused under section 293(b), 353 IPC and section 3 of TNPPDL Act before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy. With that, the prosecution side evidence was closed.
15.The accused were questioned under section 313(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances against them. They denied the evidence of the witnesses as false and stated that a false case has been foisted. No witness was examined on the defence side.
16.At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act, 1992 and sentenced them to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 12 months SI each.
17.Against which, this criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
18.Heard both sides.
19.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that except PW1, no other witnesses identified the accused; The accused were not known to any one of the witnesses before the occurrence; Even as per the evidence of PW1, he saw the accused for the first time; No identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer; There was a delay of 4 days in dispatching the FIR to the court; CCTV footages which are available in the hospital were not recovered; Even recovery made by the Investigating Officer is not properly established. The photographs taken were not marked by the prosecution.
20.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the evidence of PW1 is sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty and proper appreciation of the evidence was taken by the trial court, which requires no interference.
21.The background facts may be taken into account before we go further.
22.One Ganesan consumed poison who is stated to be the relative of the accused. He was taken to PW1's Hospital https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 on 11/10/2012. Suddenly Ganesan developed breathing problem. PW6 Dr.Balasubramanian was on the duty. Initially Ganesan was attended by the Dr.Sathishkumar, who was examined as PW4. PW4 Sathishkumar after the duty time was over, he went out of the hospital; at about 06.00 pm, when he was in the home, he was informed that Ganesan developed complication. So he immediately contacted PW6 Balasubramanian, the Doctor who was present on duty in the hospital at that time. PW4 instructed PW6, the Doctor to attend him immediately and arrange ventilator in the meantime, Dr.Sathishkumar arrived at the Hospital. When he entered the hospital, he was assaulted by the relatives of Ganesan. At about 10.30 pm, Ganesan died without responding to the treatment. Before that, it appears that the accused persons caused damage in an agitation mood. This is the back ground facts.
23.The evidence of PW4 and PW6 indicates that a high class medial aid was extended to Ganesan. Since he already consumed poison, it appears that he developed complications, for which Doctors cannot be held responsible. But without understanding the complication of such cases, the appellants herein along with their relatives, caused assault to PW4 and caused damage. This sort of conduct cannot be justified on any ground. Even PW4 could not identify the accused, who caused the assault. But PW1 the Managing Director of the Hospital was very https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 clear in his evidence with regard to the identity of the appellants. So, I find absolutely no reason to discard his evidence.
24.The contention on the part of the appellants is that the evidence of PW1 should not be considered since he was not present in the place of occurrence, at that time, since he was attending OP duty. But reading of the PW1's evidence does not support the case of the appellant on this aspect. According to him, as mentioned above, after hearing the noise in the II Floor, he immediately rushed that place and saw the accused caused damage to the glass windows and the chairs. So, I find absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. So also there was no motive prior to the occurrence.
25.The problem created by the accused is also spoken by PW2 and PW5, who were present at the time of the occurrence. The damage also verified by the evidence of PW10 the Investigating Officer. He has stated in his evidence that he visited the place of occurrence and collected the glass pieces and broken chairs. Ex.P5 is the parvai mahazar, wherein there is a clear mention about the damage glass pieces and plastic chairs. The recovery mahazar also indicates the recovery of damaged glass pieces. So, it cannot be stated that nothing happened as projected by the prosecution. These are the materials https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 available, which are against the appellants.
26.Now coming back to the argument of the appellants that no identification parade was conducted subsequent to the occurrence, since the accused were not known to PW1, it cannot be accepted. As mentioned above, he was very specific in his evidence about the identity of these appellants. Even he has identified the accused during the course of the trial, being the Managing Director he was in a better position to identify the accused, who caused the damage. Simply because the CCTV footages were not collected, the appellants cannot dispute the very occurrence itself. The delay in reaching FIR to the court does not assume any importance at all. Absolutely, there is no false implication. But as stated above the appellants were in assault mood without understanding the medical complications involved in the issue. It is the case of the appellants that because of the previous treatment given by the Doctors, the death occurred. As mentioned above, they took all possible steps to give proper treatment. Since the medical treatment has its own, the unfortunate had happened. But the hospital, even though a private hospital, intended to give treatment for the patients. When the people like the appellants start causing damage to the hospital, then no one will be saved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
27.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would rely upon the following judgments viz.,(1)Sam Stalin Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station [(2021)3 MLJ (Crl) 585]; (2)An unreported judgment of this court in A.Murugesan and 4 others Vs. The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District (Crl.A No.505 of 2018) and (3)An unreported judgment of this court in Bhuvaneswaran and seven others Vs. State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valangaiman Police Station (Crl.A No.43 of 2020, dated 17/11/2022).
28.But the facts and circumstances of the case cited by the appellants is entirely different from the present facts and circumstances. Especially, in criminal matters, no facts will be same or similar. So, the observation made in the above said judgments cannot be taken into account in this matter.
29.Considering the manner in which the offence said to have been committed by the appellants, I am of considered view that no interference is called for in the judgment of the conviction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018
30.The trial court has awarded three years SI and imposed Rs.1,000/- as fine. But considering the above said circumstance under which the offence said to have been committed and also taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances, the sentence is reduced to three months SI for the offence under section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, fine is confirmed.
31. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The period of sentence of three years of SI is modified as three months SI in respect of the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The period of detention already undergone by the appellants shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. In other aspects, the order of the trial court stands unchanged.
13/09/2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thillai Nagar Police Station,
Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 G.ILANGOVAN,J er Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 13/09/2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/14 Crl.A(MD)No.112 of 2018 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/14