Velusamy v. State

BAIL SLIP The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on Bail in and bythe order of this Court dt.17.06.2004 made in Crl.Mis.Petition of 4079 of2004 in Crl.Rc.650/04 on the file of the High Court Madras.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.07.2007 CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRL.R.C.NO.650 OF 2004andCrl.M.P.No.4080 of 2004Velusamy..Petitioner-vs-State rep.by Sub Inspector of PoliceMulanur Police StationMulanur,Dharapuram TalukErode DistrictCr.No.228/98 .. Respondent This Revision is filed against the Judgment of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.3) Dharapuram in C.A.No.158of 2003 dated 18.3.2004.For petitioner :: Mr.N.ManoharanFor respondent :: Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E RThis revision has been preferred against the Judgment in C.A.No.158of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court No.3) Dharapuram which had arisen out of the Judgment inS.C.No.55 of 2000 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,Dharapuram. The accused who was charged under Section 307 of IPC and wasconvicted and sentenced by the Courts below to undergo seven yearsrigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with defaultsentence, is the revision petitioner herein before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2)The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this revisionsans irrelevant particulars are as follows:Due to previous enmity, in connection with a land dispute, on 11.12.1998at about 9.30 a.m., the accused had assaulted P.W.1 Palanisamy with anaruval on his neck both the legs, fingers, head , right ear, foreheadcausing grievous injuries and the accused was charged under Section 307 ofIPC.3) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram,after takingcognizance of the offence, had issued summons to the accused and on hisappearance furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. And since thecase is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions had committed the caseunder Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court viz., the Assistant SessionsJudge, Dharapurama on appearance of the accused had framed charge underSection 307 of IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.4) Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 13 were examined. Exs P1 toP17 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked.5) P.W.1,Palanisamy is the victim. According to him, he had enteredinto a sale agreement with one Palanisamy,s/0 Karuppanna Gounder,Ayagoundanpalayam and has also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards thepartial consideration of the sale amount and that the accused Velusamy isthe nephew of the proposed vendor Palanisamy. From the date of the saleagreement itself, the accused has criminally intimidated P.W.1 on theground that if any one who purchase the said property, he will bemurdered by him and in this connection P.W.1 had also preferred acomplaint with the Mulanur Police Station. Thereupon, the police alsowarned the accused and before the police, he had given an undertaking thathe will not intimidate any one in future in respect of the said land. On11.12.1998, when P.W.1 was in the said land, was removing thorny bush ,the accused came there and criminally intimidated and assaulted him withan aruval on the left side of his neck, both the thighs repeatedly whichresulted him to fell on the ground. Thereafter, the accused claimed onhis chest and once again assaulted with the same aruval on the head, forehead and chest repeatedly and while he resisted the attack, the fingersof the left hand also got injured and in the melee, the accused also gotinjured on his left hand . On hearing the distress call raised by P.W.1,Chellan, Kattaiyan, Kathirvel,Kanagaraj came to his rescue but the accusedhad left the place of occurrence towards east with the weapon and that hebecame unconscious and he was taken to Amaravathi Hospital at Karur laterhe was referred to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore where he had preferred Ex P1complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police. He has also identified M.O.1 asan Aruval used by the accused at the time of occurrence. M.O.2 is theblood stained lungi handed over by P.W.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police inthe hospital.5a) P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence who would corroboratethe evidence of P.W.1. According to him,at the time of occurrence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused had assaulted P.W.1 on his left side of the neck, both the legs,head , forehead repeatedly causing grievous injuries and that the injuredwas removed to the hospital.5b) P.W.3 Kathirvel has also seen the injured at the place ofoccurrence with injuries all over his body and also had seen the accusedgoing towards east from the place of occurrence with the weapon. He hadremoved the injured in a taxi to private nursing home at Karur from wherethe injured was referred to K.G.hospital, Coimbatore.5c) P.W.4 is a witness in Ex P2 Mahazar who had not supported thecase of the prosecution. Hence he was treated as a hostile witness. P.W.5is the another witness in Ex P4 mahazar under which M.O.2 was recovered byP.W.13.5d) P.W.11 is the then Sub Inspector of Police,Mulanur Police Station. On the basis of the information, he had received through wireless,proceeded to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore on 11.12.1998 at about 10.00p.m. andrecorded the statements from the injured P.W.1 who was under treatment asan in patient in the said hospital which is Ex P1. On the basis of Ex P1,he had registered the case under Mulanur Police Station Crime No.228 of1998 under Section 307 of IPC against the accused .Ex P12 is the firstinformation report.5e) P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer in this case. On 11.12.1998at about 1-0.00a.m., he had visited the place of occurrence and preparedobservation mahazar Ex P2 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness andhad drawn a rough sketch Ex P14 and had seized the blood stained sand andsample sand under ExP15 and went to the hospital where the injured wastaking treatment in the K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore and had recovered M.O.2blood stained lungi from P.W1 in the presence of P.W.5 under Ex P4mahazar. He had arrested the accused on 14.12.1998 at about 1.00p.m., andhad recorded the voluntary confession statement of the accused in thepresence of P.W.6. The admissible portion of the confession statement isEx P5. On the basis of the confession statement, the accused took him andthe other witnesses to his land and took out an aruval from the hiddenplace which was recovered by P.W.13 under Ex P6 mahazar in the presence ofP.W.6. M.O.1 is an aruval. M.O.3 and M.O.4 are wearing apparels of theaccused at the time of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer has alsoseen the accused for treatment since he had also suffered injury on hisleft hand. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.5f)P.W.7 is the doctor who had examined the injured at AmaravathyHospital at Karur at 11.00 a.m., on 11.12.1998. On examination , he founda cut injury on the nap measuring 25 cm x 25 cm bone deep. Injury No.2 cutinjury on the left side of the neck measuring 15cm x 15 cm and a cutinjury on the right pinna and a lacerated injury on the left finger and acut injury measuring 10x 6 cm on the left thigh near the knee bone deep.Injury No.6.three cut injuries measuring 10 cm x 10cm, measuring 10cm x7cm x 3 cm x 2cm, on the left thigh. Three cut injuries on his right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ knee measuring 5 cm x 5 cm 2. 7 cm x 5 cm 3. 6 cm x 5 cm. An abrasion onthe chest. Injury No.9 cut injury measuring 8 cm bone deep on the leftfore arm. Since the condition was precarious, he was immediately referredto K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore, after giving first aid and has also intimatedto the police Station .Ex P7 is the intimation given by him to the KarurPolice Station. The doctor has opined that the above said injuries wouldhave been caused with a weapon like M.O.1 and that the above said injuriesare sufficient to cause even death.5g) P.W.8 is the Doctor who had examined the accused on 11.12.1998for the injuries he had sustained the cut injury on the left fore arm andthat he has admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for three days. P.W.9is the doctor who would examine P.W1 on 14.12.1998 at about 8.50p.m., atGovernment Hospital, Dharapuram. Ex P8 is the copy of the accidentregister issued by him for the injuries found in the person of P.W.1.5h) P.W.10 is the doctor in K.G.hospital, Coimbatore who had examinedP.W.1 at 2.10 p.m on 11.12.1998 and found the following injuries."A cut injury on the left leg measuring 4cm x 1cm x 1 cm near femur bone .A curved cut injury measuring 12 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm middle of left thigh. Acurved cut injury measuring 15 cm x 2 cm just above the injury No.2. A cutinjury measuring 15 cm x 3 cm x 3cm on the left thigh which was foundsutured. A small portion of the bone in the left thigh bone was foundfractured. On the left knee another cut injury measuring 2cm x 1 cm. A cutinjury on the left index finger the bone in the left index finger wasfound fractured. Two cut injuries measuring 2cm x 1 cm near the leftmiddle finger. A cut injury measuring 5cm x 1 cm on the left ring finger.Another cut injury measuring 3cm x 1 cm on the left ring finger. A smallcut injury on the left small finger. A cut injury on the left shouldermeasuring 15cm x 5cm x 2 cm. A cut injury measuring 5cm x 1cm x 1 cm onthe lower portion of the right leg , 2 irregular cut injuries measuring5cm x 1cm x ½ cm on the right knee and an abrasion measuring 10cm x ¼ cmon the right chest. A cut injury below the neck measuring 5cm x ½ cm . Acut injury near the right pinna. A cut injury behind the right earmeasuring 15cm x 3 cm x 3 cm . A cut injury measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on theright side of the fore head. A cut injury measuring 10 cm x 2 cm on thecentre portion of the head. Bone in the skull was also found fractured. Acut injury near the left side of the neck near chin". He had also takennine x-rays for the above said injuries. Ex P9 series are the said X-rays.Ex P10 series are the C.T.Scan photographs. Ex P11 is the woundcertificate issued by P.W.10. P.W.12 is the radiologist in K.G.Hospital,Coimbatore. According to him, X-ray were taken to P.W.1 on 17.12.1998 inthe said hospital and that he had handed over the x-rays in the office ofthe said hospital. P.W.13 had examined the doctors and recorded theirstatements. After completing the formalities, he had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 23.2.1999 under Section 307 of IPC.6) When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.wereput to the accused, he would totally deny his complicity with the crime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7)After going through the oral and documentary evidence adducedbefore the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has found the accusedguilty under Section 307 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentencedhim to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also slapped a fineof Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of thelearned trial Judge, the accused had preferred an appeal before theAdditional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court NO.3) Dharapuramin C.A.No.158 of 2003. The learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Judge, afterscanning the evidence and also after giving due consideration to thesubmissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant andthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor has held that there is no reasonto interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge and accordinglyconfirmed the Judgment of the learned trial Judge thereby dismissing theappeal preferred by the accused which necessitated the accused to preferthis revision petition.8) When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.N.Manoharan, thelearned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would represent thathe is going to argue only on the sentence and not on merits. The learnedcounsel would represent that all along the accused was a farm servant ofP.W.1 and only due to the misunderstanding developed between him and P.W.1in connection with the purchase of adjacent land on the date ofoccurrence, the occurrence had occurred and that the accused is nowprepared topay a substantial amount towards compensation to the victim if the victimis prepared to accept the same. The learned Additional Public Prosecutoralso was heard on this point who had took time to consult the victimthrough the police and to day both the victim P.W.1 and the accused werepresent in the Court and when P.W.1 victim was asked whether he iswilling to receive the compensation amount, he said that he is not veryparticular to send the accused inside the prison but he is very particularthat the accused who is his erstwhile farm servant himself shall feelsorry for his act. The accused also realized his inhuman act and feltsorry for the way in which he had conducted himself on the date ofoccurrence by assaulting his own master with a deadly weapon.9) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner wouldrely on a decision reported in Baldev Singh -v-State of Punjab(AIR 1996Supreme Court 372) in a case under Section 304(i) of IPC, the accused whowas awarded five years was modified by the Apex Court by awarding acompensation of Rs.35,000/- to the family of the deceased. In RakkiaGounder-v- State by Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, ErodeDistrict (2007(2) CTC 168) in a case of similar nature,the learned Judgeof this Court has awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation instead of fiveyears rigorous imprisonment. In a decision reported in Sarup Singh-v-State of Haryana represented by the Home Secretary,(AIR 1995 Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2452) wherein the accused who was charged under Section 304 (ii) IPC wassentenced for seven years was modified as a compensation of Rs.20,000/-to the legal representatives of the victim.10) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had drawn the attentionof this Court in a Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Badrilal-v-State of M.P(2005(7) Supreme Court Cases 55) and contended that eventhough a case under Section 307 of IPC is not compounable if a jointpetition of compromise under Section 320 of IPC was filed even in a casewhere the accused is facing the charge under Section 307 of IPC , it canbe taken into consideration. But in the present case on hand, both victimand the accused were present and the victim P.W.1 is amenable forreceiving the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Under such circumstances, I amof the view that the sentence awarded by the Courts below is liable to bemodified as indicated above.11) In fine, the revision is dismissed but the sentence alone ismodified to that of the period already undergone and a fine amount ofRs.50,000/- is imposed on the accused. The entire amount is directed to bepaid to P.W.1 victim as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Theaccused is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.50,000/- before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram /committal Court on or before1.8.2007. This compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- is apart from thefine/compensation amount awarded by the trial Court. In case, the accusedfails to deposit the said amount before the stipulated time, theconviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below will sustain.Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No. 4080 of 2004 is also dismissed.sgSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram.2. The District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram3. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharapuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. -The Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram5. -do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Erode6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras7. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanur Police Station, Mulanur,, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode.8. The Superintendent at Central Prison,Coimbatore+ 1 cc to M/s.N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr.No.43903.AKR(CO)dcp/19.7.07Crl.R.C.No.650/2004