Uthandaraman v. Staterep. by the Inspector of Police, Panrutti Police Station, Cr.No

The Appellants in C.A.262 of 2003 viz.1. Uthandaraman 2.Anantharaman 3. Raghuraman 4. Muniammal 5.Thenmozhi and 6. Kannan, A2to A7 were directed to be released on bail in and by the order ofthis Court dated 17.2.2003 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1533 of 2003.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.02.2010CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALACrl.A.No.262 of 2003andCrl.R.C.No.996 of 20031. Uthandaraman2. Anantharaman3. Reghuraman4. Muniammal5. Thenmozhi6. Kannan .. Appellants in Crl.A.No.262 of 2003(A2 to A7)Vs.Staterep. by the Inspector of Police,Panrutti Police Station,Cr.No.869 of 1999. .. Respondent in Crl.A.No.262 of 2003/RespondentsSubramaniam .. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003(PW1)Vs.1. Uthandaraman2. Anantharaman3. Raghuraman4. Muniyammal5. Thenmozhi6. Kannan ...Petitioners/ 1 to 6/Accused 2 to 7/7th respondent /complainant7. Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No.869/99... Respondents in Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003 Criminal Appeal No.262 of 2003 against the judgment dated20.1.2003 in S.C.No.44 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Districtand Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Criminal Revision Case No.996 of 2003 for enhancement of theconviction and sentence imposed upon the respondents 1 to 6 in thejudgment dated 20.1.2003 in S.C.No.44 of 2000 on the file ofAdditional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2),Cuddalore.For appellant in Crl.A.No.262 of 2003 and for respondents 1 to 6 in Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003:Mrs.Vedavalli KumarFor respondent in Crl.A.No.262 of 2003 and for respondent No.7 in Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003 :Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)For petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003: Mr.S.Parameswaran for M/s.R.RajanJUDGMENTThe Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case arise out ofthe judgment dated 20.1.2003 in S.C.No.44 of 2000 on the file of theAdditional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2),Cuddalore, whereby A.2 to A.7 were convicted for the offence underSection 147 IPC and they were directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment; A.5and A.6 were convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and bothwere directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, toundergo three months' simple imprisonment and A.2 to A.4 and A.7 wereconvicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and each sentenced toundergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) A.1 is Harikrishnan and his sons are A.2 Uthandaraman, A.3Anantharaman and A.4 Raghuraman. The wife of A.1 is A.5 Muniyammal.A.2's wife is A.6 Thenmozhi. A.7 Kannan is the relative of A.1 toA.6. (b) P.W.1 Subramanian's brother is P.W.2 Kothandapani. Anotherbrother is P.W.4 Chandrasekaran. P.W.3 Deivanayagam alias Anbazhaganis the son of P.W.2. They are the injured eye witnesses. (c) A.1 has taken the electric wire through P.W.1's land whichwas asked P.W.1 to remove the electric wire through the land. So,there was previous enmity between both families. (d) On 21.8.1999 at 5 p.m., at Iyyanar Koil Street, in front ofP.W.1's house at Thattampalayam Village, P.W.1 was chatting with hisfamily members with regard to steps to be taken to remove the wiretaken through his land. At that time, adjacent house owner A.1 heardthe same. A.1 to A.7 unlawfully assembled and each members A.1 to A.7took casuarina pole in their hands. A.7 uttered words against P.W.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chandrasekaran, stating that if he murders P.W.4, then only all thethings will be set right and he assaulted P.W.4 with casuarina pole.P.W.4 sustained injury. A.5 and A.6 assaulted P.W.4 on his back andhand, which was prevented by P.W.1. At that time, A.3 Anantharamanassaulted P.W.1 with the casuarina pole by uttering words, @,njhLxHpe;Jngh@/ A.1 assaulted P.W.2 on his head. A.4 assaulted P.W.3 onhis cheek and hand. After then, villagers rushed to the place. A.1 toA.7 flew away from the place of occurrence. (e) Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken to Government Hospital,Panruti, where P.W.7 Doctor has given first aid to them and he issuedExs.P-8 to P-11 wound certificates. Since P.W.4 has sustainedgrievous head injury, he was referred to Government Hospital,Cuddalore. P.Ws.1 to 3 were also referred to the Government Hospital,Cuddalore. The following injuries are stated in Exs.P-8 to P-11 woundcertificates:Ex.P-8 relating to P.W.1 Subramanian:"1. Lacerated injury Right parietal scalp 6x1x1/2cm.2. Deffuse contusion right hand."Ex.P-9 relating to P.W.2 Kothandapani:"1. Lacerated injury scalp 8x1x1/2cm right parietal.2. Deffuse contusion right hand."Ex.P-10 relating to P.W.3 Deivanayagam:"1. Lacerated injury scalp left parietal region 6x1x1/2cm.2. Lacerated injury left occipital region 2x1/2x1/2cm.3. Lacerated injury left frontal scalp. 1x1/2x1/2cm. 4. Left forearm lacerated injury 2x1x1/2cm.5. Abrasion right cheek 1x1cm."Ex.P-11 relating to P.W.4 Chandrasekaran:"1. Contusion 6x4cm right parietal scalp with laceratedinjury 4x1x1cm over that Bleeding present.2. Deffuse contusion right thigh, right leg, left arm."(f) On 21.8.1999 at about 9 pm, P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Policereceived a complaint from P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P-1 and thesame was registered in Cr.No.869 of 1999 for the offences underSections 147, 323, 307 IPC. Ex.P-12 is the F.I.R. Immediately, hedespatched the same to higher officials and Court.(g) P.W.9 Inspector of Police took up the matter forinvestigation and at about 10 p.m., he went to the place ofoccurrence. In the presence of P.W.5 and P.W.6, he prepared Ex.P-2observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-13 rough sketch. He also seizedM.Os.1 to 7 casuarina poles in the presence of same witnesses underEx.P-7 mahazar.(h) Then, P.W.9 Inspector of Police went to the GovernmentHospital, Cuddalore and he seized blood stained clothes and other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials from P.Ws.1 to 4, which are marked as M.Os.8 to 16 in thepresence of P.W.5 and one B.Chandrasekaran under Exs.P-3 to P-6seizure mahazars. (i) Then, P.W.9 Inspector of Police examined the witnesses andconcluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against theaccused under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 307 read with 149 IPC. 3. The trial Court, after following the formalities, framednecessary charges. The accused denied the charges. After examiningP.Ws.1 to 9, marking Exs.P-1 to P-13 and M.Os.1 to 16, the accusedwere questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminatingevidence against them, to which they denied. During the course oftrial, A.1 died and hence, the charges stood abated as against A.1.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trialCourt has convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trialCourt, learned counsel for the appellants-accused would contend thatthe earlier complaint alleged to have been given by the third party,has been suppressed, that there is delay in preferring the complaintand despatching the same and that there is contradiction between theocular evidence and medical evidence. Hence, learned counsel prayedfor acquittal of the accused.5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contendthat there is no iota of evidence before Court to show that there wasa previous complaint. P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police has stated thathe obtained Ex.P-1 from P.W.1. In such circumstances, there is nosuppression of the earlier complaint. Learned Government Advocatefurther contended that there is no delay in preferring the complaintor despatching the same to the Court. Since the case is based oninjured witnesses, that too, four eye-witnesses, even if there isdelay, it will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hefurther contended that there is no contradiction between ocularevidence and medical evidence, even though P.W.4 has sustainedgrievous head injury, because, the radiologist has not been examinedand x-ray has not been marked. The trial Court considered the same inproper perspective and the accused were found guilty of the offenceunder Section 323 IPC and other offences. There is no infirmity orillegality in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/P.W.1 in Crl.R.C.would submit that P.W.4 has sustained grievous injury and so, thecharge has been levelled against the accused for the offence underSection 307 IPC and merely because the prosecution has not examinedthe radiologist and not marked x-ray, the trial Court has come to theconclusion that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section323 IPC and the sentence imposed is only six months' rigorous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imprisonment. It is very lesser punishment, considering the overt actcommitted by A.7. Hence, the revision petitioner/P.W.1, in Crl.R.C.,prayed for enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 7. While considering the arguments of both sides, the firstlimb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused is that the earlier complaint has been suppressed. Learnedcounsel culled out the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. While consideringthe evidence of P.W.1, he has stated that unknown person whoaccompanied him has given information to the Police Station. In hisevidence in cross examination, P.W.1 has stated as follows:@////// rptuhkd; khiy 6 kzpf;Fs; Ml;nlh vLj;J te;jhh;/ vd;Dld; Tl te;j ngh;bjhpahj egh; rk;gtk; rk;ke;jkhf fhty; epiyaj;jpy; brhd;dhh; /////@P.W.2 in his evidence in cross examination, has stated asfollows:@ //// rk;gt ,lj;jpypUe;J gz;Ul;o muR kUj;Jtkidf;F bry;tjw;F Kd;ghf gz;Ul;ofhty; epiyaj;jpw;F brd;W brhd;ndhk;/ mth;fs; vGjp bfhz;lhh;fs;/ eh';fs; mt;thWbrhy;Yk;nghJ cjtp Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; Ma;thsh; ,Ue;jhh;/ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; gz;Ul;o fhty;epiyaj;jpy; vGjp th';fpa gpwF v';fsplk; ifbaGj;J th';fpdhh;fs;/ gz;Ul;o fhty; epiyaj;jpy;,Ue;J gz;Ul;o muR kUj;Jtkidf;F fl;Lfl;l brhd;dhh;fs;/ ////@P.W.3 in his evidence in cross examination, has stated asfollows:@ ///// jl;lhk;ghisaj;jpypUe;J gz;Ul;o muR M!;gj;jphpf;F bry;Yk; tHpapy;jhd;fhty;epiyak; ,Ue;jJ/ eh';fs; fhty;epiyak; brd;W brhd;ndhk; /////@8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to note that as per theevidence of P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police, he recorded Ex.P-1complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.869 of 1999 forthe offences under Sections 147, 323 and 307 IPC. This has to beconsidered along with the decision relied on by the learnedGovernment Advocate, reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 1241 (Calcutta HighCourt) (Ranjit Das Vs. State of W.B), wherein, it was held as follows:"In the case of a delayed FIR or even where theoriginal FIR, if any, is not coming before the Court, thatby itself may not in all circumstances be a reason tosummarily throw away the prosecution case itself. There mayin a given case, still be circumstances and evidence onrecord capable of giving a clear picture of the core aspectof the case so as to lead the Court to a definite conclusionbeyond doubt. But in a case of delayed FIR or in case of anyconfusion whether there was any earlier FIR, the Courtindeed may start with an initial suspicion." 9. Considering the above decision and the entire evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 4 and 8, I am of the opinion that there is no such first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint. So, the argument advanced by learned counsel for theappellants-accused that the first complaint has been suppressed, doesnot merit acceptance.10. As per the evidence of P.W.8 Sub-Inspector of Police, he hasreceived Ex.P-1 complaint on 21.8.1999 at about 9 p.m. and registereda case and that FIR has been received by the concerned Court at 10.30a.m. on 23.8.1999. In the complaint, the names of the accused andovert act have been clearly mentioned. Moreover, as per the evidenceof P.Ws.1 to 4, only P.W.4 alone was unconscious as soon as hereceived head injury. But others were conscious and they narrated theincidence. In such circumstances, as per the decision reported in2000 Cri.L.J. 1241 (cited supra), while considering the entireevidence along with the circumstances of the case, I am of theopinion that the delay in despatching the FIR to the Court is notfatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. Next, it has to be decided whether there is anycontradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence.The Doctor was examined as P.W.7. The evidence of P.W.7 iscorroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 in respect of injuriessustained by them. In Exs.P-8 to P-11 wound certificates, it wasstated that the witnesses were alleged to have been assaulted by sixknown persons with the casuarina pole on 21.8.1999 at 5 p.m. at thehouse. The injuries sustained by them are also corroborated by theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P-8 to P-11 wound certificates andthe evidence of P.W.7 Doctor. So, the argument advanced by learnedcounsel for the appellants-accused that there is a contradictionbetween the ocular evidence and medical evidence, does not meritacceptance. 12. A.1 to A.7 have formed unlawful assembly and to execute thecommon object, they assaulted P.Ws.1 to 4 and caused injuries andhence, the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that A.2 toA.7 are guilty of the offence under Section 147 IPC. Even though theywere armed with casuarina poles, since no charge has been levelledagainst them under Section 148 IPC, the trial Court came to thecorrect conclusion that A.2 to A.7 are guilty of the offence underSection 147 IPC and were only directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each,in respect of the said offence. I do not find any infirmity in thesame. So, I am forced to concur with the conviction and fine, imposedon A.2 to A.7 by the trial Court in respect of the offence underSection 147 IPC. Hence, the conviction and fine imposed on A.2 to A.7for the offence under Section 147 IPC are liable to be confirmed.13. A.2 and A.4 were charged for the offence under Section 323IPC for causing simple injury to P.W.3 Deivanayagam @ Anbazhagan. Thewound certificate pertaining to P.W.3 has been marked as Ex.P-10.P.W.7 Doctor's evidence proved that A.2 and A.4 are guilty of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence under Section 323 IPC and so, the conviction of A.2 and A.4for the offence under Section 323 IPC is liable to be confirmed.14. A.3 was also charged for the offence under Section 323 IPCfor causing injury to P.W.1 Subramanian. The evidence of P.W.1 andP.W.7 Doctor and Ex.P-8 wound certificate pertaining to P.W.1, haveproved that he was guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC andhence, the conviction for the offence under Section 323 IPC againstA.3 is also liable to be confirmed.15. A.5 and A.6 have caused injury to P.W.4 Chandrasekaran. Thathas been proved by way of examining P.W.4 and P.W.7 Doctor and Ex.P-11 wound certificate pertaining to P.W.4. Hence, A.5 and A.6 are alsoguilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC. The conviction and fineimposed on A.5 and A.6 for the offence under Section 323 IPC areliable to be confirmed.16. The charge levelled against A.7 is for the offence underSection 325 IPC for causing injury on P.W.4 Chandrasekaran. That hasbeen corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7 Doctor and Ex.P-11 wound certificate pertaining to P.W.4. Even though A.7 was chargedfor the offence under Section 325 IPC, but radiologist has not beenexamined and x-ray has not been marked. The trial Court came to theconclusion that he is only guilty of the offence under Section 323IPC. I concur with the findings of the trial Court that A.7 is guiltyof the offence under Section 323 IPC. Hence, the conviction imposedon A.7 for the offence under Section 323 IPC, is liable to beconfirmed.17. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused would contendthat A.2 to A.7, even though they were found guilty of the offenceunder Section 323 IPC, only A.2 to A.4 and A.7 were sentenced toundergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and A.5 and A.6 were onlydirected to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each. At this juncture, learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner/P.W.1 in Crl.R.C. would contendthat P.W.4 has sustained head injury and he was admitted inGovernment Hospital, Cuddalore and subsequently he was referred toGovernment General Hospital, Chennai and he has taken treatment asin-patient for 11 days. Hence, the sentence imposed by the trialCourt is far below and it is lesser punishment and he wanted toenhance the punishment imposed on A.2 to A.7.18. It is true that P.W.4 has taken treatment for 11 days inGovernment Hospital, Chennai, but no document has been producedbefore the trial Court to prove that P.W.4 sustained grievous injury.X-ray was not marked and radiologist has also not been examined toprove that he sustained grievous injury. Moreover, there is noevidence before Court that there is intention to commit murder. So,the trial court is correct in holding that A.2 to A.7 are guilty ofthe offence under Section 323 IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. As per Section 323 IPC, the imprisonment shall be for oneyear or with fine upto Rs.1,000/- or with both. Considering thestatement of A.2 to A.4 and A.7, who are male members, the trialCourt has sentenced them for only for six months' rigorousimprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Since they werealready in prison, learned counsel for the appellants would submitthat the period of imprisonment already undergone by them may betreated as punishment.20. Considering the argument of the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) as well as learned counsel for the appellants-accusedand the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C., I amof the view that the occurrence has taken place, in view of takingelectric wire through P.W.1's land, which lead to such an incident.But P.Ws.1 to 4 have sustained only simple injury, except P.W.4 whosustained grievous injury. Considering the same, to meet out the endsof justice, for the offence under Section 323 IPC, A.2 to A.4 and A.7shall be fined at Rs.1,000/- each, instead of sentence of six months'rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for the offenceunder Section 323 IPC. The sentence of six months' rigorousimprisonment awarded to A.2 to A.4 and A.7 for the offence underSection 323 IPC, is set aside and instead, A.2 to A.4 and A.7 are nowimposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each, totalling Rs.4,000/-, out of whichRs.3,000/- is to be paid as compensation to P.W.1. 21. In fine,(a) The Criminal Appeal and the Crl.R.C., are dismissed.(b) The conviction and fine imposed on A.2 to A.7 for theoffence under Section 147 IPC are hereby confirmed.(c) The conviction and fine imposed on A.5 and A.6 for theoffence under Section 323 IPC are hereby confirmed.(d) The conviction imposed on A.2 to A.4 and A.7 for the offenceunder Section 323 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of six months'rigorous imprisonment imposed on them, is set aside and instead, A.2to A.4 and A.7 are now imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, totallingRs.4,000/-, out of which Rs.3,000/- is to be paid as compensation toP.W.1.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ csTo1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore.2. -Do-Thro The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore3. The Judicial Magistrate, Panruti4. -Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore5. The Inspector of Police, Panrutti Police Station, Cuddalore District.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.7. The District Collector, Cuddalore.8. The Director General of Police, Chennai1 cc To Mr.R.Rajan, Advocate, SR.80401 cc To M/s.Vedavalli Kumar, Advocate, SR.8177 Crl.A.No.262 of 2003and Crl.R.C.No.996 of 2003SP(CO)sra 25.02.2010