BAIL SLIP v. The State of Tamil Nadu

BAIL SLIP The Appellant/Accused viz., Srinivasan was directed to thereleased on bail in an by order of this Court dated.10.4.2007 made inMP.No.1/07 in Crl.Rc.No.559/07IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:24.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.559 of 2007Srinivasan ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accusedvs.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep. By Sub Inspector of PoliceVanoor Police StationDindivanam(Vanoor P.S.Crime No.341/99) ... Respondent/Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment dated 16.03.2007 in Crl.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file ofthe Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1,Dindivanam, confirming the judgment dated 17.11.2006 in C.C.No.304 of2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Vaanoor.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar for Mr.D.SThirumavalavanFor Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.(crl.side)O R D E RAnimadverting upon the order dated 16.03.2007 in Crl.A.No.3of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, FastTrack Court No.1, Dindivanam, confirming the judgment dated17.11.2006 in C.C.No.304 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsifcum Judicial Magistrate, Vaanoor, this criminal revision is focussed.2. An epitome and the long and short of the case of theprosecution as stood exposited from the records could be portrayedto the effect that on 24.09.1999 at about 22.30 hrs., the accusedbarged into the house of Sekar, aged 22 years and attacked him withknife owing to previous enmity and caused grievous injury on his leftelbow and also two other simple injuries, one on his head and anotheron his right elbow. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173Cr.P.C. as against the accused, for the offences under Sections 452,324, 326 r/w 506(2) IPC. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty,the trial was conducted and during trial, on the prosecution side,P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined; Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of theaccused. 4. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposedthe sentences as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------Case No. Offence Punishment imposed---------------------------------------------------------------------C.C.No. U/s 452 IPC Six months R.I., fine amount of Rs.2,000/-,304/2000 in default to pay the fine amount, one month Simple imprisonment. U/s 326 IPC Six months R.I., fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, one month Simple imprisonment.Sentence to run concurrently---------------------------------------------------------------------5. Being disconcerted and dissatisfied with the judgment of thetrial Court, the appeal in C.A.No.3 of 2007 was filed for nothing butto be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.6. Animadverting upon such recording of conviction and imposingof sentences, this revision is filed on various grounds finding faultwith the judgments of both the Courts below. However, at the time ofargument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would makea supine submission to the effect that he is restricting his argumentonly for the purpose of getting reduction in sentence, so to say, hewould implore and entreat that the sentence of one month alreadyundergone by him might be imposed as punishment and the sentence offine imposed shall be left in tact.7. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentencesimposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court,are in order?8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as wellas the learned Government Advocate (crl.side).9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused bydrawing the attention of this Court to the facts that the very Doctorwho gave treatment to Sekar was not examined and one other Doctor whowas conversant with the signature and handwriting of the said Doctorwas examined and he had not produced the X-ray and there is nodetailed description of the nature of the alleged grievous injurysustained by the accused, would argue that it could only be taken assimple injury and even in the FIR, only Section 323 IPC was referredto and in such a case, this Court could pass a sentence of one monthimprisonment which he had already undergone. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would object forreduction of sentence. P.W.6, Dr.Sahu who was examined on theprosecution side would depose before the Court that he was conversantwith the handwriting and signature of the Doctor who gave treatmentand through him Ex.P3, the wound certificate was marked. However, hefell into error in stating that in the said certificate there is noreference to X-ray. But a plain perusal of the said Ex.P3 wouldreveal that X-ray was taken and it revealed that there was a fractureof the left elbow. The core question arises as to what was theactual nature of the grievous injury. It is one thing to say thatthere was fracture and yet it is another, to point out clearly whatwas the gravity of the fracture. There are various types offractures, like simple fracture, compound fracture, etc. Unless indetail the nature of the fracture is found established, this Courtcannot have a clear view of it in its mind's eye about the nature ofthe fracture.11. I am fully aware of the fact that for the offences underSection 326 IPC, even life imprisonment is contemplated and it alldepends upon the gravity of the grievous injury inflicted on aperson with dangerous weapon. But here, technically alone it isfound proved that the injured sustained fracture. Hence I would liketo agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the sentence of one month imprisonment if imposed,that would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, this revision ispartly allowed by reducing the two sentences of six months rigorousimprisonment imposed under Section 452 IPC as well as under Section326 IPC to one month simple imprisonment. If already as stated bythe learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the accused hadunderwent the one month imprisonment, the same shall be adjusted andtreated that the punishment of substantive imprisonment is concernedhe had already undergone, as otherwise he is to be committed to theprison to undergo the punishment imposed herein. Regarding fine partis concerned, it left is tact.In the result, this criminal revision case is partly allowed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrargmsTo1. Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Dindivanam.2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.3. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaanoor.4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Villupuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanoor Police Station, Dindivanam.7. The Public Prosecutor, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan,Advocate,SR.35025Crl.R.C.No.559 of 2007PUR(CO)EM/25.8.09