BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31/08/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
CRL.A.(MD)No.422 of 2003
1. Ravi
2. Govindan
3. Mayilvahanan ... Appellants
Vs
The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Karambakudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) praying against the order of
conviction made in S.C.No.53 of 2002 on the file of Fast Track Judge,
Pudukkottai, dated 29.01.2003 convicting the appellants under Sections 452 and
307 of I.P.C.
!For Appellants ... Mr.S.K.Kanagarajan
^For Respondent ... Mr.P.Rajendran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)
* * *
:JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal arises against the conviction sentence made in
s.C.No.53 of 2002 on the file of the Fast Track Judge, Pudukkottai District,
dated 29.01.2003 convicting the appellants/accused offence under Section 452 and
307 of I.P.C., to set aside the order of conviction and to acquit the
appellants/accused 1 to 3.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
P.W.1/de-facto complainant lodged a complainant with the respondent police
/ Sub Inspector of Police, Karumbakudi Police Station, who came to the
Government Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai, wherein the complainant was
admitted as in patient. He stated in his complaint as follow:- He is living of
Pattathikadu village and is occupied in agricultural operations and at the same
time also occupying the position as village president. On 01.11.1997 all the 3
accused came to his residence at about 09.00 p.m. while he was sleeping and
attacked him with aruvals. Due to previous enmity the accused 1 and 2 and the
complainant he was assaulted. The same incident was witnessed by No.1Rangaswamy
S/o Rajagopal, No.2 Chinnammal W/o complainant, No.3 Mrs.Perianaghi W/o
Doraiswamy, No.4 Ayyaivoo S/o Govindaswamy, No.5 Balakrishnan S/o Doraiswamy and
No.6 Thadasamy S/o Periya swamy. The P.W.1/de-facto complainant had further
narrated that accused NO.1 Ravi, was seized by the above mentioned witnesses.
The other two accused fled. The said complaint was registered by police in
Crime No.529 of 1997 an alleged offence under Section 452, 324 and 307 of I.P.C.
The same was registered on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m.
3. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 11
documents were marked, 12 material objects were produced. P.W.1 had adduced
evidence stating that he is occupied in a agricultural operations and also
holding the position of Village president, P.W.2 his wife, P.W.3 is sister-in-
law, P.W.4 hisbrother-in-law, P.W.5 one Sundaram neibour, P.W.6 resident of the
same village, P.W.7 Dr.Ravi Kumar, P.w.8 also from the same village, P.W.9
Inspector of Police, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.11 Inspector of Police.
The documents are as follow:-
Ex.P.1 .. Complaint
Ex.P.2 .. Mahazar
Ex.P.3 .. Mahazar
Ex.P.4 .. Mahazar
Ex.P.5 .. Mahazar
Ex.P.6 .. Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7 .. Mahazar
Ex.P.8 .. Statement
Ex.P.9 .. F.I.R
Ex.P.10 .. Rough Sketch
Ex.P.11 .. F.I.R.
Ex.R.1 .. Wound certificate of A-1
The material objects are as follow:
M.O.1 .. Aruval
M.O.2 .. Aruval
M.O.3 .. Aruval
M.O.4 .. light blue shawl
M.O.5 .. blood stained concrete
M.O.6 .. dhoti
M.O.7 .. blood stained lungi
M.O.8 .. blood stained towel
M.O.9 .. blood stained jutti
M.O.10 .. blood stained towel
M.O.11 .. blood stained dhoti
M.O.12 .. blood stained dhoti
4. The P.W.1 / complainant had adduced evidence stating that he knows all
three accused. P.W.2,3 and 4 is the wife, sister-in-law and son-in-law
respectively. P.W.5, 6 and 8 are known persons belonging to the same village.
At that point in time P.W.1 was holding the Village President post. A-1 had
stolen a vessel from Balasubramaniam’s tea stall, for which a local panchayat
inquiry was conducted and a sum of Rs.500/- was levied as fine to the accused,
for which as a consequence an enmity developed between A1 and P.W.1. A-2 was
defeated in the election for the panchayat local poll and this created an enmity
between him and P.W.1. A-3 is the friend of A-1. All the 3 accused came to the
residence of P.w.1 on 01.11.1997 at around 09.00 p.m. and put on the light and
began questioning A-1 immediately A-1 used his aruval and inflicted a wound on
P.W.1’s left ring finger. A-2 Govindan used his aruval and inflicted a wound on
the rear side of P.W.1. A-3 also used his aruval and inflicted wound on the
right side shoulder of P.W.1 and the said cried out in alarm. A-1 was actually
caught hold by the others, A-2 and A-3 had fled. P.W.1 was rushed to the
Government Headquarters hospital, Pudukkottai. The Sub-Inspector of Police
visited the hospital on 02.11.1997 at about 05.30 a.m and the complaint
collected by the police. Other witnesses P.W.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 deposed this
narrations in one voice.
5. P.W.7 Dr.Ravikumar had adduced evidence stating that P.W.1 was taken to
the hospital on 01.11.1997 at around 11.50 p.m by his relatives and admitted in
the hospital. At that time P.W.1 had sustained 3 cut injuries namely, (1) 6″ x
6″ wound on his left neck and profuse bleeding (2) 6″ x 4″ wound on his left
Palm and (3) 1″ x 1 1/2″ cut injury on his right shoulder. The doctor further
adduced evidence that the lacerated blood vessels were deep on the effected
areas. All the three injuries or wound are minor injuries. The P.W.1 was an in
patient in the hospital from 02.11.1997 to 01.12.1997 as an in patient.
6. The Doctor further adduced evidence in his cross examination that A-1
was admitted in the hospital on 02.11.1997 and was discharged on 01.12.1997. He
also sustained 3 injuries (1) 3″ x 1/2″ cut injury on his left leg sole (2) 1″ x
1″ cull injury on his head and (3) swelling on his left eye due to blood
clotting. The doctor adduced evidence accordingly by marking wound certificates
as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6.
7. P.W.9 one Dhakshnamurthy, Inspector of Police had adduced evidence
stating that Inspector Arumugham and Sub Inspector Srinivasan had registered a
case and they placed the file before him further investigation.
8. P.W.10 Sub Inspector had adduced evidence stating that he went to the
Government hospital at Pudukkottai and after seeing P.W.1 had registered the
case against the three accused persons.
9. All the accused were arrested and material evidence was collected. The
sub Inspector had registered a counter case lodged by the 1st accused in crime
no.530 of 1997 against the de-facto complainant and others. Subsequently the
complaint was closed as a mistake of fact.
10. P.W.11 Inspector of police inspected the place of crime occurrence and
prepared a rough sketch and in the presence of witnesses A-1’s complainant was
registered initially in crime No.530 of 1997 under Sections 147, 342 and 323.
After the investigation the case was closed as mistake of fact in the said
incident and he adduced evidence accordingly.
11. R.W.1 had also adduced evidence and denied the prosecution case. In
his counter complaint he stated that he and the other two accused had been to
the house of the P.W.1 and attacked him, due to previous enmity. He was caught
byP.W.1’s brother, Rangaswamy and one Govindasamy, who tied his hands and legs
with a rope, there after (1) Thevamani (2) Rangam (3) Ganesan, (4) Iyyavoo (5)
Thangaswamy (6) Govindan and (7) Dharman, had kicked the A-1 beaten him with
sticks and fisting with hands, hence he sustained injury on his head, face, left
leg and other parts of his party. At another time the head cousable Kanagaraj
had released him to took him to the police station.
12. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, and perusing the
documentary evidence, verifying the material objects, the learned Judge, Fast
Track Court, Pudukkottai, had awarded the punishment as follow:- for 2 years
Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo a further
period of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment sentencing him under Section 452 of
I.P.C. 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default to
undergo a further period of 1 month of Rigorous Imprisonment. This sentences
awarded under Section 307 of I.P.C. to the A-1.
13. A-2 was punished under Section 452 and was sentence 2 years Rigorous
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further period of 3
months Rigorous Imprisonment, under Section 452 of I.P.C. Further he was
sentenced under Section 307 for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.500/- in
default to undergo a further period of three months Rigorous Imprisonment.
14. A-3 was sentenced to 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine,
in default to undergo 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment. Which was awarded under
Section 452 of I.P.C. further he was sentenced under Section 307 of I.P.C for
one year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default a further
period of 2 months Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 506(2) I.P.C, all the
3 accused were acquitted.
15. The above 3 accused have challenged the conviction sentenced by filing
this appeal.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of the
prosecution is inconsistent. P.W.1 and 2 are not reliable and trust worthy.
The witnesses of the prosecution stated that A-1 had fled from the place of
occurrence, which is not correct. Actually the police personnel had saved him
from the clutches of P.W.1’s, associates and accompanies. The learned counsel
for the appellants further argued that the counter complaint was registered in
Crime No.530 of 1997 but is was closed by the investigation officer, assigning
the reasons that the complaint is closed as a mistaken fact.
17. A1 was also admitted in the hospital on the memorandum of the police
station and stayed as in-patient at the Government hospital for about one week.
wound certificate was also issued by P.W.7 doctor, who also adduced evidence
regarding the injuries of A-1. The learned counsel further argued that all the
accused persons are involved in agricultural operations as coolies, who are
facing this criminal case for the past 13 years. Their normal family lives are
being effected, they are living below the poverty line, its only due to
illiteracy the incident had happened, for they are indeed socially and
economically a backward class and could be considered innocent, besides they
were never involved in any previous criminal cases. Hence the learned counsel
prays to allow this appeal and acquit the accused persons.
18. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) argued that the conviction
sentences have been awarded to the accused on the basis of the well considered
prosecution evidences. The injured/ complainant was an in patient in the
Government hospital for one month. After examining 11 witnesses and marking 12
documents and 11 Material Objects were produced. A1 and A2 had developed
previous enmity with the de-facto complainant, as such the accused persons had
jointly come together with the intention of killing P.W.1. The occurrence had
also taken place at the residence of P.W.1. The weapons used by the accused
were also seized by the police. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
further argued that the counter case of A1 was closed after due enquiry, stating
that it was not proved.
19.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by the learned counsels from either side and on perusing the
documentary evidence, the judgment passed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai,
this Court is of the view that there are discrepancies which are as follows:-
(1) A1’s counter complaint was registered in crime NO.530 of 1997 under
Sections 342, 147 and 323 of I.P.C, the said complaint indicates that one
P.Kanakaraj, Head Constable had saved him from the clutches of P.W.1’s men, the
Head Constable was not examined.
(2) A1’s wound certificate issued by Dr.Ravikumar, P.W.7, stating that A1
sustained 3 distinct injuries.
(3) Against the police memo and the police man taking A1 to the Government
hospital for treatment. As such a more detailed investigation and trial is
imperative in this case in order to decide the issue and render justice.
20. Hence, this Court finds a discrepancy on the side of the prosecution
and a lacuna in the judgment passed by the learned Judge in S.C.No.53 of 2002
dated 29.01.2003. Therefore, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence
passed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, and acquits all three accused, including
the remission of the fine amounts to the accused.
21. With the result the above criminal appeal No.422 of 2003 is allowed
and conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.53 of 2002 dated 29.01.2003 is set
aside. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
SKN
To
1.The Assistant Session Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.