Mahadevan @ Kalathi Chennavarthanan v. State rep byInspector of PoliceGobichettipalayam Police Station.Erode District

Bail SlipThe Accused/ Appellant, Mahadevan @ Kalathi Chennavarthananwas directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court18.8.2001 and made in Crl.M.P.5035 of 2001 in Crl.A.No.693 of 2001on the file of the High Court, Madras.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-07-2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 693 of 2001Mahadevan @ Kalathi Chennavarthanan ..Appellant/accused-vs-State rep byInspector of PoliceGobichettipalayam Police Station.Erode District .. Respondent/complainantThis appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C.,againstthe Judgment passed in S.C.No.195/2000 dated 19.7.2001 on the fileof II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam.For appellant : : Mr. K.Govi GanesanFor respondent: : Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the Judgment inS.C.195 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Assistant SessionsJudge, Gobichettipalayam.2. According to the prosecution, on 1.6.2000 at about 7.30p.m., due to previous enmity, the accused had assaulted thevictim P.W.2, with a suri knife on the left side of the lowerabdomen resulting grievous injury. The accused has been chargedunder Section 307 of IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The case was taken on file by the learned JudicialMagistrate,No.1, Gobichettipalayam , on appearance of the accusedon summons had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. andsince the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions hadcommitted the case to the Sessions Judge under Section 209 ofCr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge on appearance of the accusedhad framed charges under Section 307 of Cr.P.C. and whenquestioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.4. Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 10 were examined . ExsP1 to P 23 were exhibited and , M.Os 1 and 2 were marked.5. P.W.1 is the brother of the injured. He is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. According to P.W.1, the accused is aneighbour and the injured is his brother. On 1.6.2000 at about12.00 noon, the accused's sister Nagammal was conducting a chit inwhich Maranaicker was a subscriber and that the said Maranaickerdemanded Nagammal to pay his priced chit amount and in thisconnection there arose a quarrel between Maranaicker andMahadevan, the brother of Nagammal, who has made an attempt toassault Maranaicker. When his brother had intervened to preventthe accused from stabbing Maranaicker, the accused took out a suriknife from his waist and stabbed on the lower abdomen of thevictim and has also criminally intimidated him, after he hadintervened in the matter and immediately he took his brother P.W.2to the Government Hospital,Gobichettipalayam from where he wasreferred to the Government Hospital, Erode after giving first aidfor further treatment and that the police came to the GovernmentHospital, Erode and obtained a complaint Ex P.1 from his brother.5a. P.W.2 is the victim, who would also corroborate theevidence of P.W.1 to the effect that there was an enmityprevailing between Maranaicker and the accused's sister Nagammalin connection with a chit transaction in which Maranaicker was asubscriber of the chit and that on 1.6.2000 at about 8.00p.m., infront of Chinnasamy's sheep pen, the accused, his sister Nagammal,and Maranaicker and his wife were quarrelling with each other inconnection with the chit amount due to Maranaicker and that he andhis brother intervened and tried to pacify them and that theaccused had criminally intimidated Maranaicker and he has alsothreatened to kill him, if he insists his sister Nagammal to paythe priced chit amount and when he intervened requesting both theparties to go away from the place of occurrence, the accused gotinfuriated and took out a suri knife and stabbed him on the leftside of the lower abdomen resulting his intestine protruding out.Thereafter, his brother took him to the Government Hospital,Gobichettipalayam where after giving first aid, he was referredto the Government Hospital, Erode for further treatment and thathe was admitted in the Government Hospital, Erode as an inpatient https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ where he underwent surgery.5b. P.W.3 is an independent ocular witness to the occurrence.She is also a resident of Thottipalayam. She knows about theaccused as well as the victim. She is also a subscriber in thechit conducted by the accused's sister Nagammal. According toher, Nagammal owes Rs 2,500/- to her in the chit transactions.She has also complained that when she made a request to Nagammalto repay the chit amount, the accused, who is none other than thebrother of Nagammal made an attempt to assault her. P.W.3 is thewife of Maranaicker. According to her, on the date of occurrence,at the time of occurrence, when her husband Maranaicker has made arequest to Nagammal to repay the chit amount due, Nagammal and herbrother, the accused herein, got infuriated and criminallyintimidated with a knife, at that time, P.W.2 intervened, who wasassaulted by the accused on the left side abdomen with a knifecausing grievous injury and that P.W.2 was removed to theGovernment Hospital,Gobichettipalayam by P.W.1, the brother ofP.W.2.5c. P.W.9 is the head constable, who had registered thecomplaint preferred by P.W.1 in Gobichettipalayam Police StationCrime No.377/2000 under Sections 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC. Ex P11is the first information report. According to P.W.9, on the basisof Ex P10 intimation received from the Government Hospital,Gobichettipalayam on 1.6.2000 at 12.35 hours, he went to theGovernment Hospital, Erode. But found that the injured was notadmitted in the Government Hospital, Erode. On 2.6.2000, at about3.00a.m., P.W.1 came to the police Station preferred Ex P1complaint, 5d. P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police, who took up theinvestigation in this case on the basis of the First InformationReport Ex P11. He had visited the place of occurrence on 2.6.2000at about 5.00 a.m., and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex P2 in thepresence of P.W.4. He had also recovered the knife M.O.1 under theSeizure Mahazar Ex P3 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witnessAmalraj. He had also recovered M.O.2 blood stained Lungi fromP.W.2 Murthy, the injured under ExP4 mahazar in the presence ofP.W.4 and another witness. P.W.10 had also drawn a rough sketchExP12 in the presence of the same witnesses. He has examined thewitnesses and recorded their statements. He has also altered thefirst information report from Section 324 of IPC to Section 307 ofIPC. The altered First information report is Ex P13. On28.7.2000, the accused had surrendered before the High Court andobtained anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5e. P.W.5 is the photographer, who had taken Ex P5 seriesPhotographs for the place of occurrence. Ex P6 series are thenegatives of Ex P5 series photographs. P.W.6 is the JuniorEngineer of Electricity Department. He would depose that on1.6.2000, there was no disconnection to the electricity serviceconnection NO.3/44 in Thottipalayam from 7.00p.m., to 9.00p.m., ExP7 is the register containing the entries in this regard.5f.P.W.7 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.2 on 1.6.2000 at8.20p.m., who was brought to the hospital by one Selvaraj and thatP.W.2 had informed him that he had sustained injury by a knownperson. He had noticed a stab injury on the left side abdomen ofP.W.2 measuring 3 to 4 cm in length through which the intestinewas protruding out with fat materials and that he had given firstaid to him and referred him to Government Hospital,Erode forfurther treatment. Ex P8 is the copy of the accident register.5g.P.W.8 is the doctor, who had conducted surgery on P.W.2for the injury, he had sustained in the occurrence. According tohim, on 1.6.2000 at about 9.05 p.m., P.W.2 was brought by P.W.1his brother Muthusamy, who was referred to Government Hospital,Gobichettipalayam for further treatment. He would depose that heis working in a private hospital by name "Lotus Apollo Hospital"at Erode and that P.W.2 was brought by P.W.1 to the Lotus ApolloHospital, Erode, instead of taking him to the Government Hospital,Erode and that P.W.2 was admitted as an in patient in Lotus ApolloHospital and that he had conducted a surgery on P.W.2 and that ExP9 is the wound certificate issued by him(P.W.8). According tohim, the injury sustained by P.W.2 is a grievous one. Aftercompleting the formalities, P.W.10 has filed the charge sheetagainst the accused which was signed on 25.8.2000 but producedbefore the Court only on 5.9.2000.6. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has denied his complicity with thecrime. After meticulously scanning the evidence both oral anddocumentary let in before the learned trial Judge, the learnedtrial Judge has held that the offence under Section 307 of IPChas been made out against the accused and accordingly convictedand sentenced the accused to undergo five years rigorousimprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs.3000/- with defaultsentence, which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal.7. The point for determination in this appeal is whether theconviction and sentence by the trial Court under Section 307 ofIPC is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of theappeal?. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Heard Mr. K.Govi Ganesan, learned Counsel appearing forthe appellant and Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam, learned GovernmentAdvocate appearing for the State and carefully considered theirrival submissions.9. The Point:Apart from the injured witness P.W.2, the ocular witnessesexamined on the side of the prosecution are P.W.1 and P.W.3. Fromthe evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, it is seen that when there was aquarrel between one Maranaicker and the accused's sister Nagammalin connection with a chit transaction , the victim P.W.2intervened to pacify both the parties, but enraged at theintervention of the victim, the accused had took out the knifefrom his waist and assaulted him on the left side of the lowerabdomen of the victim, which resulted his intestine protrudingout. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the doctors, who have treated P.W.2victim at Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam and Lotus ApolloHospital respectively. Now the only point to be decided in thisappeal is whether the injury said to have been caused by theaccused to P.W.2 is a grievous injury or a simple injury. Section320 of IPC defines what are all the grievous injuries. Section 320of IPC Grievous Hurt: The following kinds of hurt only aredesignated as "grievous" " firstly.- Emasculation Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight ofeither eye.Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearingof either ear. Fourthly. - Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.- Desturction or permanent impairingof the powers of any member or joint . Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the heador face .Seventhly. - Fracture or dislocation of a boneor tooth. Eightly: Any hurt which endangers life orwhich causes the sufferer to be during thespace of twenty days in severe bodily pain, orunable to follow his ordinary pursuits". 10. According to the evidence of P.W.8, the doctor, who hadissued Ex P9 wound certificate,the nature of the injury has beendescribed as grievous in nature. But the injury will not comewithin the definition of Section 320 of IPC to describe it as agrievous injury. The injury may be medically grievous but notlegally. The mere protruding out of the intestine from the stomach https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will not derive us to come to a conclusion that the injurysustained by P.W.2 is a grievous one since it will not come underthe definitions of "grievous hurt" as under Section 320 of IPC.Under such circumstances, the offence will squarely come underSection 324 of IPC because it hasbeen established that with a dangerous weapon M.O.12 knife theaccused has caused a hurt to P.W.2. So the accused is liable to beconvicted under Section 324 of IPC and not under Section 307 ofIPC.11. Coming to the question of sentence, at the time ofoccurrence, without any provocation and without any motive againstPW.2, the accused had stabbed him as seen from the evidence ofocular witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3. Under such circumstance, I am ofthe view that imposing of six months rigorous imprisonment willmeet the ends of justice under Section 324 of IPC. 12. In fine, the appeal is partly allowed and conviction andsentence by the trial Judge under Section 307 of IPC is set asideand the accused is convicted and sentenced under Section 324 ofIPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine ofRs.3000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment.Out of the fine amount, the entire fine amount is to bepaid to P.W.2 as compensation under Section 357(1) of IPC.Set off is ordered under Section 428 of IPC. The trial Court isdirected to secure the accused by issuing N.B.W and after securingthe accused , he shall be sent to prison to spend the unexpendedportion of the sentence.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sgTo1. The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,Gobichettipalayam.2. -do through the District and Sessions Judge, Erode.3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam4. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station,Erode7. The Sub Jail, Gobichettipalayam8. The Superintendent , Central Jail, Coimbatore.1 cc to Mr.K. Govi Ganesan, Advocate, sr. 43839Crl.A.No. 693/2001ASM (CO)kk 21/7