Mani @ Veerapathiran v. The Station House Officer Bahour Police Station Puducherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.08.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAMCrl.R.C.No. 902 of 20091. Mani @ Veerapathiran2. Arumugham @ Kuttaikuzhapi Arumugam3. Vijay @ Vijay Amirtharaj4. Kathiravan ... Petitioners/ Appellants/ AccusedvsState rep. by The Station House OfficerBahour Police StationPuducherry. ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.A. No.17/2008 dated21.08.2009 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge and modifyingthe order passed in S.C. No.82 of 2006 dated 11.04.2008 on the fileof Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherryand acquit the revision petitioner.For Petitioners : Mr.K.Gandhikumar For Respondent : Mr.R. Thangavelu, G.A for Pondicherry ORDERThis revision is preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.17/2008 dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Puducherry modifying the judgment passed in S.C. No.82 of 2006 on11.04.2008 by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief JudicialMagistrate, Puducherry. 2. The petitioners herein faced prosecution of offencesunder sections 341 r/w.34, 326 and 326 r/w.34 of IPC in S.C.No.82 of2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief JudicialMagistrate, Puducherry. The prosecution case was that the 4petitioners/ accused, harbouring a common intention, wrongfully https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ restrained the defacto complainant and 3 of his friends when theywere proceeding to Bahour market at Vedhapurinatham, Bahour WestStreet Junction, Puducherry at about 8.30 p.m on 04.07.2006. Theyassaulted the defacto complainant and his friends with iron pipes,and attempted to cause death of one Ravi by causing grievous injuryto his left eye resulting in the removal of the same. They alsoassaulted others. The attack was said to be motivated by politicalrivalry. Before the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief JudicialMagistrate, Pondicherry, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses andmarked 14 exhibits, as also 3 material objects. The defence examined1 witness and marked 1 exhibit. 3. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Courtentered upon a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioners toone month simple imprisonment for offence u/s.341 IPC; A2 wasconvicted and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and fineof Rs.7,000/- in default six months imprisonment for offence u/s.326IPC; A1, A3 and A4 were convicted and sentenced to three yearssimple imprisonment and fine of Rs.7,000/- each in default six monthsimprisonment. It had also ordered the sentence to run concurrently.Out of the total fine amount of Rs.28,000/-, a sum of Rs.16,000/- wasordered to be paid as compensation to PW-2 Ravi. There against, thepetitioners moved an appeal in C.A.No.17 of 2008. Learned IIAdditional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, while confirming theconviction has modified the sentence of three years imprisonment toone of one year simple imprisonment for offence u/s.326 IPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedGovernment Advocate for Puducherry.5. On consideration of the rival submissions, this Courtwould find fault with the prosecution case for the following reasons:1.PW-5 admits to having found PW-2, the injured Ravi alone atthe place of occurrence and having taken him to a private hospital bymotor cycle. The Doctor who examined P.W.2 there, had found thenature of injury grievous and asked P.W.5 to take PW-2 to theGovernment Hospital. He has deposed that thereafter he took PW-2 toMahatma Gandhi Hospital, where again he was asked to take P.W.2 to aneye hospital. Thereafter, he took PW-2 to the Aravind Eye Hospital,where in turn he was asked to go to Government Hospital. PW-5informs that he took PW-2 to the Government Hospital at about 10.00pm. In the course of chief examination, P.W.5 stated that he hadnot been examined by the police and he has been treated hostile. TheInvestigating Officer PW-10, has deposed that the injured witness hadnot informed him of their first having gone to Mahatma Gandhi MedicalCollege and hospital, from there to Aravind Eye Hospital and then tothe Government Eye Hospital. This stand is contrary also to theevidence of PW-1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. PW-7, the Doctor who examined PWs 1, 3 & 4 at the hospitalfound no injury on them and recorded the same in Ex.P6, 7 & 8 woundcertificates issued by him. This falsified the evidence of PWs 1, 3& 4 that the petitioners accused 1 to 4 assaulted them and theysustained injuries.3. DW-1, the Doctor who examined PW-2 has deposed that a friend(PW-5) informed that PW-2 suffered injury due to a fall off a motorcycle and such motor accident took place at about 9.30 p.m. He hasissued Ex.D1 Medical report dated 30.03.2007 to such effect. Theevidence of DW-1 finds credence when read along with Ex.P.5. Ex.P5 isthe accident register for PW-3 and PW-4, issued by the GovernmentGeneral Hospital. Perusal of the same shows that in the column fordate and time, it originally read as 24.07.2006 and 10.30 p.m. Againthe brief history originally recorded shows an assault by knownpersons on 24.07.2006 at 8.30 p.m. These stand altered to reflectthe date and time as 04-07-2006, 11.30 p.m and the brief history asassaulted by known persons on 04.7.06 at 8.30 p.m. The correctionsare apparent.4. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate issued for PW-4. Thereinagain, the date is conspicuously altered from 24.07.06 to 04.07.06.Ex.P7, Wound certificate issued for PW-3 again reveals thealterations to reflect the date 04.07.06, as also alterations of thetime as 11.35 p.m. The above alterations have been done towardscausing the impression that the occurrence wherein PW-2 suffered theeye injury and that wherein Pws1, 3 & 4 stood assaulted were one andthe same. 6. The accident register pertaining to PW-1 and the woundcertificate issued for PW-1 do not reflect any alteration except thatthe wound certificate initially recorded as 'assault by known personson 04.07.2006 near Bahour' has been altered to show 'V. P. Natham'instead of Bahour. The accident register entry for PWs 3 & 4 bearsNo.12201. This, as above informed has been altered to reflect thedate 04.07.06 instead of 24.07.2006. The accident register entriesfor PW-1 is under No.13999. When the original entry for accidentregistered under No.12201 was of the date 24.07.06, the accidentregistered for alleged occurrence on 04.07.06 cannot be of a laternumber i.e. 13999. Therefore, the accident entry for PW-1 also isfalse. The wound certificates bear the relative accident registernumbers. When if one is found false, the same would be the case withthe other. Though the above discrepancies have been brought to thenotice of the courts below and are sufficient to throw out theprosecution case, the courts below have failed to consider them inproper light. PW-7-Doctor, when confronted with the discrepancies asregards the numbers on the accident registers, has sought to explainaway the same by informing that the accident registers are not issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in seriatum for use of Doctors. While he has admitted of havingaltered the dates in the accident registers for PW-4, he has deniedthe suggestion that having caused the original entry on 24-07-06, hehas altered the same, at the request of the police. To say theleast, this conduct is not that which is expected of a Doctor andleaves much to be desired.7. The above reflects very poor and unbecoming conduct on thepart of the investigating officer. We are not concerned at whosebehest he has so conducted himself. In the course of crossexamination he has admitted that Ex.P1, complaint of PW-1 bore nodate and the general diary did not inform the registration of thecomplaint. He has in cross stated that none of the witnesses informedhim of having gone to the private hospital as also to the AravindHospital before going to the Government Hospital. There is very muchmore, that is wrong with the prosecution case. However, what isrecorded above would suffice to inform the falsity of the prosecutioncase and to enter a finding of acquittal.8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. Thejudgments of the Courts below are set aside. The petitioners areacquitted of all charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by thepetitioners shall be refunded to them.9. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the DirectorGeneral of Police, Puducherry as also the Secretary, Home Department(Govt.). They are required to take suitable action against theinvestigating officer in the case. They may cause submission of thereport of the action taken to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Courtwithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Sd/ Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registraravr24.08.2011To1. The Station House Officer Bahour Police Station Puducherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry3. The Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry4. The Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry5. The Director General of Police, Puducherry6. The Secretary to Govt., HOme Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-97. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras8. The Registrar Judicial, High Court, Madras 1 cc To Sr. Government Pleader-cum-Sr.P.P. (Pondicherry), SR.530511 cc To Mr.N.Sreenivasalu, Advocate, SR.52812Crl.R.C.No.902 of 2009RV(CO)RH (1.11.11)