High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRL.R.C.NO.1037 OF 20041. Thirumalaisamy2. Govindasamy..Petitioners/Appellants/Accused 1 and 2-vs-State by Sub Inspector of PoliceAvinashipalayam Police Station,Crime No.283 of 1997Coimbatore District .. Respondent/Respondent/ComplainantThis Revision is filed against the Judgment of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.4) Coimbatore atTiruppur in C.A.No.412 of 2003 dated 16.6.2004For petitioners :: Mr.S.N.ArunkumarFor respondent :: Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E RThis revision has been preferred against the Judgment inC.A.No.412 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional SessionsJudge(Fast Track Court No.4) Coimbatore at Tirupur.2)The short facts of the prosecution case are that on17.9.1997 at about 16.00 hours, due to the land dispute , A1 hadassaulted P.W.4 , the injured Arukkani with a handle of the spade(M.O.1) on her right hand causing grievous injury and that A2 hadassaulted P.W.4 with a stick(M.O.2) Arukkani on her right chest,causing simple injury and hence A1 has been charged under Section325 of IPC and A2 has been charged under Section 323 of IPC.3) After taking cognizance of the offence, the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Palladam, after securing the accused, by wayof summons had furnished the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.and when the charges under Section 325 of IPC against A1 and under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 323 of IPC against A2 were framed and questioned theaccused pleaded not guilty.4) Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined. ExsP1 to P10 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked.5) P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and P.W.6 are theneighbours. P.W1 and P.W.2 are the husband and wife. P.W.3 is thebrother of P.W.1.P.W.4 is the mother of P.W.1 and P.W.3. On17.9.1997 at about 6.00p.m., when Ponnusamy and Subramaniam wereploughing the land ,P.W.1 had made a request to them not to ploughthe land before partitioning the land. A1 came with a spade andassaulted P.W.4 with the handle of spade on her right handcausing grievous injury. A2 had assaulted with a stick causingsimple injury on her hip and also on her chest. Both P.W.6 andP.W.7 are another eye witnesses relied on by the prosecution.They have not supported the case of the prosecution,hence theywere treated as hostile witnesses. The complaint was preferred byP.W1 the son of P.W.4. P.W.1 narrates what has been stated in ExP1 complaint. The doctor who had examined P.W.4 was examined asP.W.9. P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registeredthe complaint in Crime No.783 of 1997 under Section 325 of IPC. ExP7 is the first information report. According to P.W.9, the doctorwho had examined P.W.4, who had referred P.W.4 to P.W.12 fortaking X-ray on the right hand and chest, since P.W.4 wassuffering from enormous pain in the right hand and chest withcontusion. M.O.3 is the X-ray and Ex P6 is the report of thedoctor P.W.12. As per Ex P6, P.W.12 has described the injury onthe right hand of P.W.4 as grievous in nature and the injury onthe chest as a simple in nature. Ex P5 is the copy of theaccident register issued by P.W.9 who had examined P.W.4 beforereferring her to P.W.12. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer aftertaking the case for investigation visited the place of occurrenceon 17.9.1997 itself and prepared Ex P5 observation mahazar andhad drawn Ex P9 rough sketch. He has examined the witnesses andrecorded their statements. He has recovered M.O.1, the handle ofspade,used by A1 in the occurrence and M.O.2 stick used by A2 inthe occurrence under Ex P4 mahazar in the presence of P.W.8. Hehad arrested the accused on 18.9.1997 at 12.30 p.m., and producedthem before the Judicial Magistrate for Judicial remand. Aftercompleting the formalities, P.W.11 has filed the charge sheetagainst the accused.6) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused,they would totally deny their complicity with the crime. 7)After going through the oral and documentary evidence, thelearned trial Judge has held that A1 is guilty under Section 325of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one yearrigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs.2000/-with default https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentence. The trial Judge has also convicted A2 under Section 323of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorousimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accusedhave preferred an appeal in C.A.No.412 of 2003 before theAdditional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court No.4) Coimbatore atThirupur who after careful consideration of the evidence let inbefore the trial Court has confirmed the conviction and sentenceagainst A1 and A2 thereby dismissing the appeal which necessitatedthe accused to prefer this revision.8) When the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.S.N.Arunkuamr, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioners would represent that the sentence alone may bemodified and a substantial amount of fine may be levied on A1 andthe same may be awarded as compensation and that against A2, thereis no evidence to warrant conviction under Section 323 of IPC,since before the doctor P.W.9 the victim P.W.4 has stated that shewas assaulted only by one person and not by two persons. HeardMr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorwho has no serious objection for the mode of disposal suggested bythe learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.9) when the matter was taken up on 16.7.2007,the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor was also given time to ascertain fromP.W.4 whether she is agreeable to receive the substantialcompensation amount of Rs.7500/- from A1 and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor has reported today(17.7.2007) beforethis Court that P.W.4 the victim lady was consulted through thepolice and she had agreed to receive the compensation ofRs.7500/-.10) In fine, the revision is allowed in part and the convictionagainst A1 under Section 325 of IPC is hereby confirmed but thesentence alone is modified to that of the period already undergoneinstead of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7500/-in default to under go one year rigorous imprisonment and out ofthe fine amount, the entire amount of Rs.7500/- is directed to bepaid as compensation for P.W.4 under Section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C.The fine amount to be paid before the trial Court within oneweek from today. The revision is allowed against A2 and theconviction and sentence against A2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 323 of IPC is hereby set aside. A2 is acquitted fromthe charges levelled against him. The fine amount if any paid byA2 is to be refunded to A2.sgSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Thirupur2. The District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore3. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Palladam4. -do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Avinashipalayam Police Station Coimbatore7. The Superintendent at Central Prison,Coimbatore+ one cc to Mr. C. Ramkumar, Advocate sr no. 43490AD(CO)NM(17.07.07)Crl.R.C.No.1037/2004