THE HONOURABLE MR v. State byThe Sub-Inspector of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 05.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.20 of 20041.Rajan 2.Subramani.. Petitioners/A1 & A2vs.State byThe Sub-Inspector of Police,J-2, Emeralad Police Station,Nilgiris District,Cr.No.54 of 2001. .. Respondent Prayer:- This revision petition has been preferred under Section397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 8.1.2004 inC.A.No.15 of 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nilgirisat Uthagamandalam, modifying the sentence imposed in C.C.No.242 of2002 dated 4.2.2003 on the file of the learned JudicialMagistrate, Uthagamandalam.For Petitioners :Mr.S.N.ArunkumarFor Respondent :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred against the judgment inC.A.No.15 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris atUthagamandalam, which had arisen out of the judgment in C.C.No.242of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.2.According to the prosecution, the revision petitionersherein viz. A1 & A2 in C.C.No.242 of 2002, on 26.8.2001 at9.30 pm at Old Attuboil Village due to previous enmity A1trespassed into the house of the complainant and attacked him witha vettukathi and when this act of the accused was prevented by thecomplainant's mother, she was also attacked by A1 resulting ingrievous injury on her left wrist and that A1 also criminally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ intimidated the complainant to do way with his life. The chargeagainst A2 is that he abused the complainant in filthy languageand caused hurt to the complainant by using a stick. Hence A1 wascharged under Section 294(b), 326, 448 & 506(ii) IPC and A2 wascharged under Section 294(b), 323 & 448 IPC.3.The learned Judicial Magistrate had taken the case on fileand issued summons to the accused for their appearance and ontheir appearance furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., andwhen charges were framed against the accused as indicated aboveand explained to them, the accused pleaded not guilty. On theside of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 toEx.P.9 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked.4.P.W.1, an injured witness in the occurrence, would deposethat on 26.8.2001 at about 9.00 pm while he was chatting with hiswife, mother and son in the house, he heard a noise abusing him infilthy language from out side the house and he came out of thehouse and saw A1-Rajan holding a knife on his right hand and astick on his left hand followed by A2-Subramani with a stick onhis hand abusing him and that when A1 attempted to assault himwith the knife, his (P.W.1) mother intervened and she was attackedby A1 on her right hand and that A2 had assaulted him (P.W.1) witha stick on the left side of the forehead and on the left kneecausing simple injuries and that he had preferred a complaint withthe police under Ex.P.1. He has also identified M.O.1 as theknife used by A1 at the time of the occurrence and M.O.2 as thestick used by A1 and also M.O.3 – stick used by A2 in theoccurrence. 5.P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, who is also an injuredwitness. She has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the factthat both the accused came to her house on the occurrence date at9.30 pm and abused them and that A1 made an attempt to assault herson (P.W.1) and she intervened, but A1 had attacked her also withthe knife on her right wrist causing grievous injury and thatP.W.1 was also attacked by both the accused with stick, who hadsustained injury on the forehead as well as on the knee and thatP.W.1 has preferred a complaint with the police. 6.P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2.7.P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered thecomplaint preferred by P.W.1 on 27.8.2001 at about 3.30 pm underCr.No.54 of 2001 under Section 323, 324, 448 & 506(ii) IPC.Ex.P.8 is the copy of the FIR. He had visited the place ofoccurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar in the presenceof P.W.4 & P.W.5 and also prepared Ex.P.3, recovery mahazar forknife and sticks used by the accused in the presence of P.W.4. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has seized the weapons used by the accused at the time of theoccurrence. Ex.P.9 is the rough sketch drawn by P.W.8. He hasexamined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he hasarrested the accused on 28.8.2001 and produced them before theJudicial Magistrate for remand.8.P.w.6 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.1 and has opinedthat she had sustained fracture in the right wrist. Ex.P.4 is theX-ray.9.P.W.7 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.2 on 27.8.2001 at12.00 noon and issued Ex.P.6 copy of the accident register. Ex.P.7is the wound certificate relating to P.W.2. He has examined P.W.1on the same date at about 12.10 pm and issued Ex.P.5 copy of theaccident register of the injuries found on the person of P.W.1.10.After completing the investigation P.W.8 has filed thefinal report against the accused on 31.10.2001.11.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied their involvement in thecrime. They have not examined any witness on their side by way ofdefence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence,the learned Judicial Magistrate has found A1 guilty under Sections326, 448 & 556(ii) IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo oneyear RI and a fine of Rs.1,500/- with default sentence underSection 326 IPC and sentenced under Section 448 IPC to undergoone month RI and a fine of Rs.100/- with default sentence andunder Section 506(ii) IPC to undergo two months RI and a fine ofRs.250/- with default sentence. The learned Judicial Magistratehas found A2 guilty under Sections 323 & 448 IPC and convicted andsentenced A1 under section 323 IPC to undergo two months RI and afine of Rs.500/- with default sentence and sentenced underSection 448 IPC to undergo one month RI and a fine of Rs.100/-with default sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of the learnedtrial Judge, the accused had preferred an appeal before theSessions Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam in C.A.No.15 of 2002.The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides and afterscanning the evidence, has confirmed the conviction against A1 andA2 and modified the conviction as against A1 from under Section326 IPC to Section 325 IPC and sentenced A1 to undergo six monthsRI instead of one year RI, sustaining the other findings of thelearned trial judge for both A1 & A2. Aggrieved by the findingsof the learned Sessions Judge/Ist Appellate Judge, both theaccused have preferred this revision.12.When the revision was taken up for hearing, the learnedcounsel for the revision petitioners Thiru.S.N.Arunkumar wouldrepresent that he will be confined himself only in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentence against A1 & A2. The learned counsel would contend thatthe observation of the first appellate Court that A1 has causedinjury with knife on the wrist only with blend portion of theweapon and this will go to show that there was no intention for A1to cause any grievous injury on the victim and that the accusedwere in jail for nearly one month at the time of remand. He wouldfurther submit that the period of one month remand may be imposedas a punishment for A1 while enhancing the fine amount for A1 toRs.6,000/-.13.Heard the learned Additional Public ProsecutorMr.V.R.Balasubramanian, who has no serious objection for modifyingthe sentence against the accused in the above line.14.In fine, the revision is dismissed confirming theconviction against A1 under Section 325, 448 & 506(ii) IPC and asagainst A2 under Section 323 & 448 IPC, but the sentence alone ismodified for A1 under Section 325 IPC to the period alreadyundergone instead of six months RI and the fine amount is enhancedfrom Rs.1,500/- to Rs.6,000/- in default to undergo one month SI.The sentence under Section 448 and 506(ii) IPC against A1 ismodified to that of the 'period already undergone' instead of 1month RI under Section 448 and instead of 2 months RI underSection 506(ii) IPC. The sentence against A2 under Section 323and 448 IPC is modified to that of the period already undergoneinstead of 2 months RI under Section 323 IPC and the periodalready undergone instead of 2 months RI and under section 448 IPCto undergo 1 month RI with default sentence. In other respects,the findings of the learned first appellate in C.A.No.15 of 2003on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Uthaamandalam, isconfirmed. The fine amount of Rs.6,000/- is to be given to P.W.2as compensation.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To,1.The Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.3.-do- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Inspector of Police, J-2, Emeralad Police Station, Nilgiris District, Crime No.54 of 2001.6.The Superintendent of Police, (The Officer in-charge) Sub-Jail. Ooty.Crl.R.C.No.20 of 2004RS (CO)kk 16/7