Sigamani v. The State, rep.by Inspector of Police, Thirukazhu Kundaram Police Station, Kanchipuram District

Bail Slip---That the Appellant/Accused Nos.6 to 8 weredirected to be released on bail by order of this Court dated11.12.2006 in Crl.M.P.NO.1/06 in Crl.RC.NO.1411/06.----IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:25.6.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.1411 of 20061.Sigamani2.Kannabiram3.Chinnapayan... Petitioners vs.The State, rep.byInspector of Police,Thirukazhu Kundaram Police Station,Kanchipuram District.... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. seekingto set aside the order dated 24.8.2005 passed by the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.26 of 2003 modifying the orderdated 4.12.2006 passed by the Principle Sessions Judge,Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.136 of 2005.For Petitioners : Mr.I.AlwinFor Respondent : Mr.Hassan Mohammed Zinna,G.A. ORDER Challenging and impugning the order dated 24.8.2005 passedby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.26 of2003 modifying the order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the PrincipleSessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in C.A.No.136 of 2005, this revisioncase is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, whichare absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of thisrevision would run thus:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section173(2) of Cr.P.C. as against 23 persons for the offence under Sections147, 148, 452, 323, 324 and 326 324 r/w.149, 325, 325 r/w.149 andSection 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage andLoss) Act 1992 (as amended in 1994). Since they pleaded notguilty, the Magistrate framed the necessary charges and conductedthe trial. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.9 wereexamined and Exs.P1 to P.11 were examined. On the accused side, nooral or documentary evidence was adduced.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the followingconvictions and imposed the following sentences.Case No.OffencePunishment imposedS.C.No.26 of 2003U/s.148, 452, 324r/w.149 IPCRigorous imprisonment forone year and to pay a fineof Rs.200/- each indefault to undergorigorous imprisonment foreach three months326 r/w.149 IPCRigorous imprisonment forthree years each and topay a fine of Rs.500/-each in default to undergoR.I.for three monthseach.Sec.3(1) Tamil NaduProperties(Prevention of Damageand Loss) Act 1992(as amended in 1994).Rigorous imprisonment forthree years each and topay a fine of Rs.500/-each in default to undergoR.I.for three monthseach.As against which, appeal C.A.No.136 of 2005 was filed before thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.A.No.136 of 2005.The learned Sessions Judge acquitted several accused persons andfound only accused 6, 7 and 8 guilty of the following offences andimposed sentences as under:-Case No.OffencePunishment imposedC.A.No.136 of 2005324 IPC(2 counts)-accused 7 and 8Fine of Rs.2000/-each for each countand in default, toundergo 6 months R.I.324 r/w.34 IPC(2counts)-6th accusedFine of Rs.2000/- indefault of which, 6months R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Case No.OffencePunishment imposed452 IPC-6, 7 and 8R.I. For one year andfine of Rs.200/-each, in default, toundergo 3 months S.I.(d) Those accused 6,7 and 8 filed this revision on variousgrounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:-3. There is no finding as to which accused used which weaponin causing the injury. There is no evidence to show that they madepreparation to commit house trespass. The history recorded by theDoctor does not go hand in hand with the narration of the injuredwitnesses, before the Court. The Medical evidence is not supportedthe version of the injured witnesses. There is nothing to provethat as per Ex.P4, P.5 and P.6 the grievous injuries allegedlysustained by the witnesses were proved. The contradictions amongthe prosecution witnesses were not considered. 4. Accordingly, the revision petitioners prayed for settingaside the conviction recorded and sentences imposed as against themby the lower Court as well as by the appellate Court.5. Despite opportunities given, the petitioners have notchosen to appear.6. Heard the learned Government Advocate.7. The point for consideration is as to whether both theCourts below were perverse in recording conviction withoutappreciating the evidence on record, warranting interference bythis Court in the revision and whether the sentence imposed by thefirst appellate Court is in order.8. A bare perusal of the judgements of both the Courts belowand also the records would reveal and evince that the case of theprosecution as per records would be to the effect that as many as23 accused along with one deceased accused Srinivasan formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons on30.1.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. with the common object of causing hurtto various persons, namely, Annammal and Sampathkumar and alsotrespassed into the house of those witnesses and caused mischief totheir belongings and in pursuance of their common object, theyperpetrated the crime and also caused grievous injuries to them.9. Even though the learned Magistrate Court recorded theconvictions and imposed the sentences as against all the accused,nonetheless the appellate Court took a balanced view and acquittedall the accused, except the revision petitioners herein and imposedsentences as referred to supra. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent ofthe following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court:(i) 2002 Supreme court cases (crl) 1448 - Bindeshwari PrasadSingh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)and another, an excerpt from it would run thus:"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegalitywas committed by the trial court. In the absence of anylegal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct ofthe trial, there was no justification for the High Court tointerfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It hasrepeatedly been held that the High Court should notreappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different fromthe trial court. In the absence of manifest illegalityresulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was notjustified in interfering with the order of acquittal inexercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance ofthe informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciationof the evidence on record may reach a conclusion differentfrom that of the trial court. But that by itself is nojustification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction underSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against ajudgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment ofthe trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defectof procedure has been pointed out. There was also noimproper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was thereany defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of thetrial vitiating the trial itself. (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjeeand Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it wouldrun thus:"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show thesettled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, atthe instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by theHigh Court only in very exceptional cases where the HighCourt finds defect of procedure or manifest error of lawresulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice."11. A bare poring over and perusal of the above judgementswould exemplify and demonstrate that revisional Court should bereluctant to interfere with the findings recorded by the lowerCourt, unless there is perversity or non-application of law inappreciating the evidence.12. Here, in this case, the Magistrate appreciated theevidence, which was re-appreciated by the appellate Court, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ being the last Court of fact and arrived at the conclusion.Unless there is perversity or non-application of mind on the partof the Courts below in scanning and scrutinising the evidence, asper law, the question of the High Court exercising its power wouldnot arise simply because the High Court might be even inclined totake a different view.13. The appellate Court, taking into consideration correctlythe injured witnesses; depositions, namely, P.W.2-Sampathkumar andP.W.3-Annaammal and also the fact that they correctly spoke aboutthe fact that Chinnappayyan-A8 attacked P.W.2 with club and whenAnnammal came there, so as to protect P.W.2 from the assailants,they also attacked her. P.W.3 Annammal also spoke about the factthat 7th accused Kannabiran and 8th accused-Chinnappayyan and othersattacked her with weapons.14. In view of the fact that a mob of six persons indulged inthe attack, there were certain inaccuracies in precisely andconcisely detailing and delineating, narrating and portraying theincident. It is a common or garden principle that when a mobattacks a house, after committing house trespass, naturally, thewitnesses will not be unison in narrating the incident and in sucha case, the approach of the Court should not be to pick holes inthe depositions of witnesses and throw away the entire evidence andif it is done so, it will amount to throwing the baby along withbath water and in the meantime, the interest of the accused shouldbe protected. If at all there is any material contradiction innarrating the participation of the witnesses, the benefit should begiven to the accused. Even though the the Assistant SessionsJudge, Chengalpattu, convicted all the accused, nonetheless theSessions Judge keeping the aforesaid sound principles of criminallaw, acquitted all the accused, except the revision petitionersherein A6, A7 and A8, as the injured witnesses and other eyewitnessclearly spoke about the participation of the revision petitionersand also the weapons used by them.15. The depositions of P.W.2-Sampathkumar and P.W.3 Annammalwere also buttressed and fortified by the medical evidence. TheDoctors P.W.7 to P.W.9 also deposed in support of the prosecutioncase and about the injuries sustained by the persons concerned.Hence, I could see no non-application of mind on the part of theappellate Court in recording the convictions, wherefore nointerference with the recording of convictions as against therevision petitioner is warranted. 16. Regarding the sentence portion is concerned, the SessionsJudge imposed a sentence of one year for the offence under Section452 IPC, which in my opinion, appears to be some whatdisproportionate to the offence perpetrated by the revisionpetitioners and taking into account their respective ages and alsothe fact that they do not have any bad antecedents, I am of theopinion that the sentence of one year substantive sentence can be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reduced to three months and over and over that no leniency could beshown in view of Section 354 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that in thefacts and circumstances of the case set out supra, the Probation ofOffenders Act also cannot be invoked in favour of the revisionpetitioners.17. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The rest ofthe appellate Court's judgement is confirmed in all aspects. Thetrial Court, on receipt of a copy of the order is expected to issuewarrant to secure the presence of the revision petitioners toundergo the sentence, if not already undergone. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarMskTo1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM .2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHENGALPATTU.3. THE PRINCIPLE SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENGALPATTU.4. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE.5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUKAZHU KUNDRAM POLICE STATION KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT6. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. Crl.R.C.No.1411 of 2006SGL {CO}TP/13.7.2009.