Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the defence, no witness has been examined and no documentary evidence has been marked.

5.After the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, by an order dated 18.08.2015 has held that the accused is found guilty for the offences under Section 294 - A & B and 332 I.P.C and convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. For the offence under Section 294 - A & B the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The period of detention already undergone by him is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Both the http://www.judis.nic.in sentence shall run concurrently. The accused is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Since the accused is punished under Section 332 I.P.C, there is no separate sentence passed under Section 186 I.P.C and he also punished under Section 294 - A & B, there is no separate sentence passed under Section 34 E-1 of P.P.Act.

8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that with regard to the charge under Section 294 A & B, the essential ingredients of “annoyance to the public” was not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and with regard to charge under Section 332 of I.P.C., P.W.1 http://www.judis.nic.in and P.W.2 who have said to have been on duty in discharging their official duty has been iterated and hence, the second Section 332 of I.P.C is not satisfied in the absence of any specific averment or whispered by them.

25.The accused was also charged for the offence under Section 34 E-1 of http://www.judis.nic.in Pondicherry Police Amendment Act. Section 34(1) of the PPA Act, deals with the act of nuisance in the public place and the same is punishable under Section 31 E-1 of PP Act. Hence, taking into consideration the fact that the ingredients of Section 332 of IPC are not made out, this Court is of the considered view that by reading of the medical evidence of PW3/doctor, who has issued Ex.P2/wound certificate to show that PW1 has sustained simple injury, the conviction laid under Section 332 of IPC is hereby converted into 323 of IPC and accordingly, fine of Rs.1,000/- is imposed. With regard to the charge for the offence under Section 34 E-1 of PP Act, this Court finds that fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby modified and the revision petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, 294 – A & B of IPC and Section 34 E-1 of PPA Act.

27(c).The instant case falls under the third category as stated supra as the action on the part of the Pondicherry police is deprecated and condemned.

28.For the reasons assigned therein, the accused is acquitted for the alleged offence under Section 186 of IPC as charge has not made out and so also for Section 332 of IPC; the conviction passed by both the Courts below under Sections 294 A & B of IPC, 34 E-1 of PPA Act are hereby confirmed since the fine amount is already paid for the offence under Section 332 IPC which was convert into one under Section 323 of IPC, the fine amount already paid shall stands adjusted therefor. Since the sentence is passed under Section 294 A & B of IPC no separate sentence is passed under Section 34 E-1 of PP http://www.judis.nic.in Act.