P.R.Duraisamy v. R.Padmanabhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-07-2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 718 of 2001P.R.Duraisamy ..Appellant/ COMPLAINANT-vs-R.Padmanabhan .. Respondent/ AccusedThis appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C.,againstthe Judgment passed in C.C.No.27/2000 dated 30.11.2000 on the fileof Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet, Coimbatore.For appellant : : Mr. N.Duraisamy for Mr.C.DeivasigamaniFor respondent: : No appearanceJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in C.C.27of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet,Coimbatore.2. The short facts of the case of the prosecution are that on25.4.1999 at about 10.00a.m., due to previous enmity, the accusedhad obstructed the complainant from driving the tractor hadbitten his left index finger and also kicked him thereby causinggrievous injuries. Since the complaint preferred by thecomplainant was referred to by the police, the complainant hadpreferred a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. againstthe accused. 3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.2, Udumalpet had issued summons to theaccused, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant,on the appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 ofCr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and when the chargeslevelled against him were explained to him and questioned, theaccused pleaded not guilty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On the side of the complainant, P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined.Exs P1 to 6 were exhibited .4a. P.W.1 is the complainant. According to him, he iscultivating the land bearing Survey No.69/2A, /2B, /2C,71/1C inPolapatti Village. On 25.4.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., while he wasploughing the said land with his tractor, due to previous enmity,the accused came to the place of occurrence and pushed him down onthe ground and suddenly bitten his left index finger causinggrievous injury and also assaulted him on his chest with his handsand also kicked on the chest and that he had preferred Ex P1complaint. 4b. P.W.2 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to theeffect that on the date of occurrence, due to previous enmity,the accused came to the place of occurrence and way laid P.W.1from proceeding with his work in his tractor pushed him down onthe ground and beaten his hands causing injuries and also kickedhim on the back of P.W.14c.P.W.3 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W1 andP.W.2 to the effect that at the time of occurrence, due toprevious enmity, the accused had bitten the finger of P.W.1 andalso kicked on his chest. P.W.4 is the doctor, who had examinedP.W.1 for the injuries, he had sustained . Ex P6 is the woundcertificate issued by him. M.O.1 is the X-ray and the doctor hadnoted four injuries in Ex P6. First one being a bite mark on theindex finger, contusion measuring 3 x 2 cm on the right chest,another contusion measuring 3 x 2 cm on the right upper arm and afracture found on the right shoulder scapular bone.4d. P.W.5 is the head constable of Maduthukulam PoliceStation. According to him, P.W.1 came to the police station atabout 5.30p.m and preferred a complaint which was registered byhim under Maduthukulam Police Station Crime No.67 of 1999 underSections 341 and 323 IPC and after enquiry, the said complaint wasclosed as "mistake of fact".5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has denied his complicity with thecrime. After going through the evidence both oral and documentarylet in before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge hascome to a conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the complaintand the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and in the complaint, there is noaverments that in the occurrence the scapular bone on the shouldergot fractured. Under such circumstances, giving benefit of doubtto the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, /trial Judgehas acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the findings of thelearned trial Judge, the complainant has preferred this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The point for determination in this appeal is whether thefindings of the learned trial Judge is perverse in nature towarrant any interference from this Court?.7. I heard Mr. N.Duraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for theappellant and carefully considered his submissions.8. The Point:According to P.W.1, the complainant , due to previous enmity, onthe date of occurrence, the accused had bitten his left indexfinger and also kicked on the chest. In the complaint, thecomplainant has mentioned about three injuries due to the assaultmade by the accused on the date of occurrence. A contusion on theright side of the chest, a bite injury on the index finger.(It isnot mentioned whether in the right index finger or left indexfinger) and a fracture on the right hand. But while deposingbefore the Court as P.W.1, the complainant has not stated that hehad sustained a fracture on the right hand. But would depose thathe had sustained injury due to bite of the accused on the leftindex finger. He would further depose thathis complaint preferred before the police was referred to "asmistake of fact" and that he got himself admitted in a GovernmentHospital and took treatment as an in patient for ten days. Hisevidence was corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3. But both P.W.2 andP.W.3 have not deposed that in the occurrence P.W.1 had sustaineda fracture on the right shoulder. Only P.W.4 the doctor, who hadexamined P.W.1 on 25.4.1999 at about 7.15p.m would depose thatthere was fracture found on the right shoulder of P.W.1. But inthe cross examination, the doctor has admitted that injury Nos.2and 3 would have been sustained due to a fall on the ground.According to P.W1, the occurrence had taken place at 10.00a.m. On25.4.1999,but the complaint before the police was preferred ,according to P.W.5, only at 5.30p.m., on 25.4.1999. Further it isseen from the evidence of P.W.5, that on the same day, a countercomplaint was preferred by the accused herein/Padmanabhan andregistered in Crime No.68 of 1999 and that the said complaint wasalso pending trial before the Court. It is seen from the evidenceof P.W.5, head constable that since there were two complaints inrespect of the same occurrence ie., Crime No.67 of 1999 preferredby the complainant and Crime No.68 of 1999 preferred by theaccused, the police investigated and found that aggressor for theoccurrence is the complainant, and filed the chargesheet in CrimeNO.68 of 1999 preferred by the accused herein and closed the casein Crime No.67 of 1999 which is in conformity with the Rule 588 Aof the Police Standing Order. Under such circumstances , I do notfind any reason to interfere with the findings of the learnedtrial Judge, who has rightly dismissed the complaint preferred by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the complainant on the ground that there is no material to warrantconviction against the accused. I do not find any perverseness inthe findings of the learned trial Judge to warrant anyinterference from this Court. The point is answered accordingly. 9. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgmentin C.C.No.27 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2,Udumalpet, Coimbatore.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sgTo1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2,Udumalpet2. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, CoimbatoreCrl.A.No. 718/2001VRK (CO)kk 23/7