BAIL SLIP v. Anusuya

BAIL SLIP The Accused/Appellants 1.Raji Gounder, 2.Sekar and 3.Thirisangu wasdirected to be released on bail as for the order of this Court 03.01.2003and made in Crl.Mp.No.13264 of 2002 in Crl.Rc case No.2221 of 2002 made inCrl.Appeal No.58 of 2002 on the file of the Addl.District and SessionsJudge F.T.C.No.II Cuddalore. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 06.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.R.C.No.2221 of 20021.Raji Gounder2.Sekar3.Thirisangu.. Petitioners/A1 to A3vs.Anusuya .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer:- This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated16.12.2002 in C.A.No.58 of 2002 passed by the Additional District &Sessions Judge, FTC-No.II, Cuddalore, confirmed the judgment inC.C.No.498 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore,dated 3.7.2002.For Petitioners :Mr.R.RajanFor Respondent :No appearanceJUDGMENTThis revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.58 of2002 on the file of the additional Sessions judge, FTC.No.II, Cuddalore,which had arisen out of the judgment in C.C.No.498 of 1995 on the file ofthe Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore. The revision petitioners are A1to A3 in C.C.No.498 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The short facts of the case of the complainant Anusuya is that theinjured Anbu is her son, who is working under one Thilaivana Mudaliar andon 19.5.1995 at about 10.30 am her son Anbu as usual took the sheeps forthe purpose of grazing near the lands of Thilaivana Mudaliar. But atabout 4.00 pm only the sheeps returned to her house but her son Anbu didnot return. So she went in search of her son and found him near the landof Thilaivana Mudaliar and at that time A1 to A3 made her son nude andcaught hold of him and A2 had branded him with a hot iron rod on hisbuttocks and on his toes and that the accused had criminally intimidatedto kill if she reveals the incident to any one else, and that immediatelyshe returned to her house with her son and took him to a doctor in aprivate hospital at Pattampakam, who had referred her son to thegovernment hospital at Cuddalore and that here son was admitted in thegovernment hospital at Cuddalore as an inpatient for nearly one week andthat she preferred a complaint with the Nellikuppam police on 3.6.1995,but the police have failed to take any further action on her complaint.Hence, she preferred a private complaint against the accused for anoffence under Section 341, 324 & 506(ii) r/w 109 IPC. 3.After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned JudicialMagistrate has issued summons to the accused for their appearance and ontheir appearance, furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 ofCr.P.C. Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P.1was marked.4.P.W.1 is the complainant. She had narrated what she had stated inher complaint. According to her, at the time of occurrence A1-RajaGounder had caught hold of her son Anbu and A2-Sekar had branded him withhot iron rod on the buttocks and that the accused had intimidated her ifshe prefers any complaint against them, she will be done to death. On thesame day, she took her son to the government hospital at Cuddaloreinforming the doctor that her son had sustained injury due to the contactwith electrical live wire. At the instance of her son, a complaint waspreferred with the police. But the police have not taken any action onthat complaint.5.P.W.2 is the injured witness. According to him, he was workingunder Thilaivana Mudaliar at Pattampakam as a shepherd and on the date ofoccurrence at about noon he fell asleep near the land of ThilaivanaMuduliar and at that time A2 & A3 came and woke up him and informed himthat his sheep are grassing the crops of Thilaivana Mudaliar and that A2had abused him in filthy language and A2 & A3 took him to the river bedand A1 had branded him with hot iron rod and that he was admitted inhospital by his mother and he took treatment as an inpatient for nearly 8days and that only on his instance P.W.1 his mother had preferred thecomplaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.P.W.3 is the elder brother of P.W.2, who would also corroborate theevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to him, he and P.W.1 were insearch of P.W.2 on the date of occurrence at about 4.30 pm since he didnot return home along with sheeps which were taken by him for grazing inthe morning. According to him, A2 had branded P.W.2 with a hot iron rodwhile A3 & A1 caught hold of him and that the accused have criminallyintimidated him and P.W.1 if they reveal the incident to any one else theyhave to meet with dire consequences. He would also depose that theinjured was initially treated at pattampakam private hospital from wherehe was taken to government hospital Cuddalore.7.P.W.4 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. But he had seen theinjured along with the accused with an injury on the buttocks. He hadremoved the injured to the hospital at Pattampakam where the doctor hadgiven first aid and referred him to the government hospital at Cuddalore.He would also depose that P.W.1 had informed the doctor that the injuredhad sustained injury only due to the contact with the live electrical wire.8.P.W.5 is the doctor, who had treated the injured at governmenthospital Cuddalore on 6.6.1995. He could find burn injury measuring20 x 20 cm on the buttocks of P.W.2 and also injury in 4th & 5th toes inboth the legs. Ex.P.1 is the wound certificate issued by him.9. On the basis of the above evidence when incriminatingcircumstances were put to the accused they have denied their complicitywith the crime. They have also examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 on their side asdefence witnesses. 10. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary thelearned trial Judge has held that the offence under Section 342, 324against A1 and an offence under Section 324 & 506(ii) IPC against A2 andan offence under section 342 & 324 IPC has been made out and accordinglythe learned trial judge has convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 342IPC to undergo six months RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with defaultsentence and under Section 324 IPC to undergo six months RI and a fine ofRs.1,000/- with default sentence. A2 was convicted and sentenced underSection 324 IPC to undergo six months RI and a fine of Rs.1000/- withdefault sentence and under section 506(ii) IPC to undergo two years RI anda fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence. A3 was convicted andsentenced under Section 342 IPC to undergo six months RI and a fine ofRs.1,000/- with default sentence and under Section 324 IPC to undergo sixmonths RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence.11.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge the accusedpreferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.No.II,Cuddalore, in C.A.No.58 of 2002. The learned first appellate judge afterhearing the learned counsel on both sides and after going through theevidence let in before the trial Court and after considering the grounds https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ raised by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal has confirmed theconviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge except theconviction and sentence imposed on A2 under Section 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned first appellate Court, theaccused have preferred this revision.12. Now the point for determination in this revision is whether theconviction and sentence passed against A1 to A3 passed by the firstappellate Court is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum ofrevision?13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contendthat the conviction and sentence passed by the first appellate Court underSection 324 IPC cannot be maintainable for the reasons that there is noacceptable reason given for the inordinate delay in preferring thecomplaint and that before the doctor, the complainant has given reason forthe injury sustained by P.W.2 is due to the contact he had made with alive electrical wire, but in the complaint P.W.1 had attributed specificovertacts against the accused for the injury P.W.2 has sustained and thatthe third reasoning, according to the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners is that even the place of occurrence itself differs from theFIR and private complaint. Hence now let us take one by one the pointsraised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner todecide whether they are sustainable. 14. According to the first information report preferred by theinjured with the police the occurrence had taken place on 6.6.1995. TheFIR was preferred by Anbu on 6.6.1995. According to him, while he wasplucking coconuts in the garden of Thilaivana Mudaliar, A1's son camethere and he also asked him to pluck another bunch of coconuts and at thattime he slipped and fell from the coconut tree and A1 to A3 took him nearthe river bed and branded him with the hot iron rod in three places onhis body and that both his legs were tied up with rope and the accusedhanged him by his legs. After giving an assurance that he will not revealthe incident to any one else he was let to go by the accused and that healong with his mother went to the hospital at Pattampakkam from where hewas referred to the government hospital at Cuddalore and after gettingtreatment in the government hospital, he got himself discharged from thehospital and preferred the complaint. According to P.W.1, the mother ofAnbu the injured P.W.2, since the police have not taken any action on thecomplaint preferred by her son Anbu, she had preferred the privatecomplaint on 21.8.1995. So the reason for delay in preferring thecomplaint is the in action of the police on the complaint preferred byP.W.2 on 6.6.1995. But in the private complaint she would state that theoccurrence had taken place in a sugarcane garden belonging to the villageheadman of pattampakkam. In the complaint she (P.W.1) has stated that A2-Sekar had branded P.W.2 with a hot iron rod below his hip and also on thetoes. But while deposing before the Court she is firm that A2-Sekar hadbranded P.W.2 with hot iron rod on the buttocks, but she had not deposedbefore the Court that A2 had also branded with hot iron rod on the toes of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her son P.W.2. But she would admit that while admitting her son in thegovernment hospital at Cuddalore, that she had informed the doctor, whohad treated P.W.1, that P.W.2 had sustained burn injury due to the contactwith the electrical live wire. But the injured P.W.2 giving go by to theevidence of P.W.1, who is an eye witness, to the effect that at the timeof occurrence only A3-Thirisangu had branded him with hot iron rod. So itis highly doubtful whether A2 had branded P.W.2 with hot iron rod or A3had branded P.W.2 with hot iron rod. 15. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. He would depose that before thedoctor at Pattampakkam P.W.2 had informed that he had sustained injuryonly due to the contact with the live electrical wire. He would furtherdepose that at the time of occurrence he saw his brother P.W.2 lying onthe ground and the accused were present at that time and they informedhim that they bet P.W.2 since he had allowed his sheep to graze in thecrops raised by them. He would further admit in the cross-examinationthat he has not enquired with his brother how he sustained injury. 16. P.W.4 would also dispose in the cross-examination that P.W.1, themother of P.W.2, has informed him that P.W.2 had sustained the injury onlydue the contact with live electrical wire. P.W.5 is the doctor, who hadexamined P.W.2 on 6.6.1995 would depose that P.W.2 had informed him thatfour known persons had caused the injury with the hot iron rod on hisbuttocks and that on examination he could see two injuries one on thebuttocks measuring 20 x 20 cm and another on 4th & 5th toes of both legs.Even there is no mention in the complaint about the injury on the toes.P.W.1 in her evidence before the Court has only stated about the injuriescaused to P.W.2 by A2 with hot iron road on the buttocks. She has notmentioned anything about the injury caused to her son P.W.2 by theaccused on his toes. 17.In this case yet another evidence to be noted is the evidence ofD.W.1, the lineman of the Electricity Department, who would depose thatelectric line is running over the land, beloning to Thilaivana Mudaliarand on 19.5.1995 night he had an information that the electrical wire nearThilaivana Mudaliar's garden snapped and live wire was lying on theground near his garden and that immediately he stopped the electricitysupply. Admittedly occurrence also took place on 19.5.1995 as per theevidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. The police complaint was also preferred byP.W.1 only on 6.6.1995. P.W.5, the doctor, has also examinedP.W.2 only on 6.6.1995. Further P.W.5, the doctor, has also opined inthe cross-examination that the injuries found on P.W.2 stated in Ex.P.1would have also been caused if a person contacts the live electrical wire.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges levelledagainst the accused have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In fine, the revision is allowed setting aside the judgment inC.A.No.58 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge,FTC.No.II, Cuddalore. The accused are acquitted from the charges levelledagainst them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused is to be returnedto them. ssvSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo,1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC.No.III, Cuddalore.2.The District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore.4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.+1 cc to Mr.R.Rajan, Advocate Sr.No.40864.ASM(CO)dcp/19.7.07Crl.R.C.No.2221 of 2002