IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:7.8.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.840 of 2007 Kanagaraj ... Petitioner vs. The State by Sub Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Vellore District ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 31.5.2007 passed by the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in C.A.No.39 of 2006 confirming the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District in C.C.No.56 of 2001. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj,G.A. ORDER
Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 31.5.2007 passed by the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in C.A.No.39 of 2006 confirming the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District in C.C.No.56 of 2001, this criminal revision case is focussed.
2. A ‘resume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:-
(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC on the ground that the accused attacked the injured boy of 12 years old with sharp edged stick, which ultimately caused deprivation of his left eye sight. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.
(b) During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined, Exs.1 to 5 and M.O.1 were marked. On the accused’s side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
(c) Ultimately, the lower Court recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under:
Case No.
Offence
Punishment
C.C.No.56 of 2001
Sec.326 of IPC
Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, three months simple imprisonment.
(d) Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the judgement of the lower Court, the appeal in C.A.No.39 of 2006 was filed before the Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Thiruppathur, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgement of the lower Court.
3. Animadverting upon the judgements of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
Without applying the mind on the factual controversies involved in this case, both the Courts below simply held as though the accused voluntarily caused grievous injuries, with dangerous weapon.
4. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he is restricting his argument only for getting the sentence reduced.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding such punishment, quite against the principle of penology.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even though on sympathetic grounds in favour of the victims, both the Courts below imposed such heavier sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment on accused, in reality, the weapon used was not that much dangerous or deadly weapon, as contemplated in the Indian Penal Code. But the accused only throw a stick, which caused such havoc on the injured.
7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the deprivation of the eye sight to the injured boy cannot be taken lightly and as such, no interference with the awarding of three years imprisonment is warranted.
8. Time and again the Honourable Apex Court in catena of decisions highlighted that the sentence imposed should be proportionate to the offence committed and it should not be either excessive or too lenient.
9. The fact remains that the injured lost his left eyesight because of the act perpetrated by the accused. However, I could see that the nature of weapon used was not that much of serious and deadly one like knife or any other sharp edged missile. It is only a ‘solathattu’ fitted with a stick. The accused is having no bad antecedent. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that imposing six months simple imprisonment would meet the ends of justice, leaving the fine imposed by the lower Court in tact. Accordingly, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment is imposed.
10. It has been even ascertained from the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as to whether the accused might be able to pay some compensation, for which the learned counsel submitted that the accused is only a coolie and he will not be able to pay any such compensation.
11. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The trial Court, on receipt of a copy of this order is expected to issue warrant to secure the presence of the revision petitioner to undergo sentence, if not already undergone.
Msk 7.8.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes To 1.The Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District G.RAJASURIA,J. msk Crl.R.C.No.840 of 2007 7.8.2009