High Court · 2012

BAIL SLIPThe Accused 3, namely Sagayaraj was released on bail videorder dated 17.6.2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.6512 of 2004 in Crl.AppealNo.734 of 2004;The Accused 2 namely Kannan was released on bail vide orderdated 06.04.2005 made in Crl.M.P.No.2721 of 2005 in Crl.AppealNo.1083 of 2004 and The Accused 1 namely Mari was released on bail vide orderdated 25.05.2005 in Crl.MP.No.4155 of 2005 in Crl.Appeal No.11 ofo2003 against the order passed in SC.No.212 of 2004 dated 27.4.2004dated 27.5.04 on the file of the Addl. District Sessions Judge,Chennai.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :09.10.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAMCrl.A.Nos.734 & 1083 of 2004 and 11 of 2005Sagayaraj.. Appellant in Crl.A.734/2004/A.3Kannan.. Appellant in Crl.A.1083/2004/A.2Mari.. Appellant in Crl.A.11/2005/A.1VersusState rep. by,The Inspector of Police,H.6, Radhakrishnan Nagar Police Station,Chennai.(Crime No.384/2000). .. Respondent in allCrl.As./ComplainantPrayer in all Crl.As.:-Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 ofCr.P.C., against the judgment dated 27.05.2004 passed by theAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III,Chennai, in S.C.No.212 of 2004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant in Crl.A.No.734/04: Mr.R.C.Paul KanagarajFor Appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1083/04 & 11/05: Mr.Dr.G.KrishnamurthyFor Respondent in all Crl.As. : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENTThe appellant in Crl.A.No.11 of 2005, the appellant inCrl.A.No.1083 of 2004 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004 arethe accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai.Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 307 r/w.34 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo nine yearsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and indefault, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Out of thetotal fine of amount Rs.30,000/-, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was orderedto be paid as compensation to the victim-P.W.2. Challenging thesaid conviction and sentence, appellants herein/accused 1 to 3 havepreferred the above three Criminal Appeals before this Court.2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-On 09.07.2000 P.W.4 was talking with his friend. At thattime, the first accused was teasing the girls, who were passingthat side. P.W.4 and his friend questioned the first accused. Thefirst accused assaulted both P.W.4 and his friend and therefore,they went and informed about this occurrence to P.W.2. P.W.2 wentand questioned the first accused and also reprimanded him. Aftersome time, the first accused came along with accused 2 and 3. Thefirst accused attacked P.W.2 on his head with knife and accused 2and 3 attacked P.W.2 with casuarina sticks. P.W.1, the father ofP.W.2, who had witnessed the occurrence, took P.W.2 to thehospital.(ii) P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugam examined the victim P.W.2 on09.07.2000 at about 5.50 p.m., and prepared the Accident Register-Ex.P.3 and admitted him in the hospital as inpatient. P.W.5, theSub-Inspector of Police, on receiving intimation from the hospital,went to the hospital and saw the victim-P.W.2 in Ward No.1. Atthat time, P.W.2 was unconscious and therefore P.W.5 got Ex.P.1-complaint from P.W.1 and he came back to the police station andregistered a case in Crime No.384 of 2000 for an offence underSection 307 I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.2.(iii) P.W.9-Inspector of Police, who took up further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation in this matter, went to the scene of occurrence andprepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.8 and a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.9and he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. On10.07.2000 at 9.30 a.m., P.W.9 arrested the third accused and inpursuance of the confession given by him, P.W.9 recovered a knifeand two casuarina sticks. On the same day at 12.30 p.m, P.W.9arrested the accused 1 and 2. P.W.2 was discharged from thehospital on 20.07.2000. The Doctor P.W.7 gave an opinion-Ex.P.4stating that the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous innature. P.W.9 recorded the statements of P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugamand P.W.7-Dr.Senthilnathan, who performed the operation for theinjuries sustained by the victim-P.W.2. After completing theinvestigation, he laid the final report against the accused. (iv) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examinedP.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and produced M.Os.1 and 2. Theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard tothe incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity.On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no documentwas marked.(v) The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentaryevidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already statedabove. 3.Mr.Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for theappellants in Crl.A.Nos.11 of 2005 and 1083 of 2004/accused 1 and 2and Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for theappellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004/third accused andMr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor were heard.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused1 to 3 submitted that P.W.1 could not have been an eye-witness tothe occurrence and Ex.P.1-complaint had been prepared belatedly.It is further submitted that even according to the prosecutioncase, the offence would not fall under Section 307 I.P.C. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that on receiving information from the hospital, thepolice went to the hospital, but since the victim-P.W.2 was not ina position to speak, the complaint was received from P.W.1, who isalso an eye-witness to the occurrence and the evidence of thevictim-P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1, father ofP.W.2 and also by the evidence of P.W.3-wife of P.W.2. It isfurther submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor thatthere was no delay in preferring the complaint and the occurrencehad taken place on 09.07.2000 at 5.00 p.m. and the F.I.R. wasregistered on the same day at 11.00 p.m.6.This Court has considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and perused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.It appears that there was some quarrel among P.W.4 andthe first accused. P.W.2 went in support of P.W.4 and he hadquestioned and reprimanded the first accused. Aggrieved by the actof P.W.2, the first accused went and brought the accused 2 and 3and P.W.2 was attacked by accused 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W.2 inchief examination that he was attacked by accused 1 to 3 had notbeen shattered in the cross examination. The evidence of P.W.2 isalso corroborated by the evidence of his father-P.W.1 and his wifeP.W.3, who had witnessed the occurrence. In Ex.P.3-AccidentRegister, it is mentioned by the Doctor that the victim-P.W.2 wasbrought by his wife and it was informed that the victim wasassaulted by known persons with Knife and Urutukattai. Theprosecution had established the fact that P.W.2 was attacked byaccused 1 to 3 on his head using knife and casuarina sticks andP.W.2 had sustained serious injuries.8.Though it was contented by the learned counsel for theappellants that the offence would not fall under Section 307I.P.C., on perusal of medical evidence, it is apparent that thevictim had sustained very serious injuries on his head and therewas fracture of skull bone. The operation was performed and thevictim could survive. The accused attacked the victim on his head,which is vital part, with knife and casuarina stick. The act wasdone by the accused with an intention of causing such bodily injurywhich was endangering to the life of the victim. Of course, theinjury had not resulted in fatal but it was only due to medicalservice rendered by the doctors. If the act of an accused with anintention to cause death or knowledge that his act would result indeath of a person is complete, and if that person survives, thenthe accused would be liable under Section 307 I.P.C.9.All the accused 1 to 3 came deliberately to attack P.W.2with deadly weapons knife and casuarina stick and all the threeaccused attacked the victim-P.W.2. There was common intentionamong accused 1 to 3 for attacking the victim and causing injurywhich may result in causing death. Hence, the conviction on theaccused 1 to 3 imposed by the trial Court for the offence underSection 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. is proper and therefore it is confirmed.10.With regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed onthe appellants/accused 1 to 3, it was submitted by the learnedcounsel for the appellants that now more than twelve years hadelapsed from the date of occurrence and according to theirinstructions, accused 1 to 3 are not involved in any other case.11.Considering the above submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the appellants and as more than 12 years had elapsedfrom the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposedon the appellants/accused 1 to 3, is reduced to a period of one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount and the defaultsentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are confirmed.12.Except the above modification only with regard to thesentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3,all the above Criminal Appeals are dismissed.The learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to securethe appellants/accused 1 to 3 and send them to prison in order toundergo the remaining period of sentence. Sd/-Deputy Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.jrlTo1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2. -do- through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.[For information]3.The XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai 1.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.5.The Inspector of Police,H.6, Radhakrishnan Nagar Police Station,Chennai.6.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Crl.A.Nos.734 & 1083 of 2004jsv[co]gp/26.10