IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.12.2009
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Crl.A.No.1521/2002
Manokaran Appellant
Vs
State by Inspector of Police
Taluk Police Station, Chidambaram Respondent
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 26.9.2002 passed in SC.No.94/2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 324 of IPC to under go three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.7500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 9 months.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Senthilmurugan for PP
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 26.9.2002 passed in SC.No.94/2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC to under go three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.7500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 9 months.
2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-
a. On 11.8.2001 at about 4.00 p.m. the Appellant abused PW.2 Pannerselvam and with regard to it, a memorandum was submitted to PW.3 Sampathkumar, the Secretary of Youth Association, but the Appellant refused to participate in the Panchayat that was called by PW.3 and on 12.8.2001 at 4.45 p.m. the Appellant/A1 and his father/A2 came and attacked PW.2 with an aruval saying that the Panchayat would be held only if PW.2 was alive and attacked PW.2 on his head which was warded off by PW.2 and the said cut fell on his right forearm and again attacked him and it fell on his left hand and wrist. Immediately, PW.2 was taken to the Chidambaram Government Hospital, where he had been referred to Raja Muthiah Hospital by the Doctor in Chidambaram Government Hospital. But, as injury was grievous PW.2 had been taken to Stanley Hospital by his family members, where he had undergone surgery and stayed there for 15 days as an inpatient. PW.2 sustained two injuries, one on his left hand and the other on the right hand and sustained fracture on both hands.
b. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate given by PW.6 Dr.Kalaiselvi in respect of PW.2, wherein the following injuries were found:-
“1. Fracture left fore arm, lower 1/3, 3″x2″x1” cut injury.
2. Cut injury right fore arm, lower 1/3, 2″x2″x1″.
3. Bleeding from the nose.”
b. On the next day i.e. on 13.8.2001 at 6.00 a.m. PW.1 submitted the complaint Ex.P1 prepared by PW.3 to the Taluk Police Station, Chidambaram and on receipt of Ex.P1, PW.9 Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.252/2001 for the offences under Sections 294, 324, 326, 307 and 506(2) of IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex.P6 and placed the same before the PW.10 Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station. On receipt of Ex.P6, PW.10 took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence at 8.30 p.m. on the same day, prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch and observation mahazar Ex.P8 in the presence of the Sagajanandam, Basker and the witnesses and recorded their statements and received complaint Ex.P2 from PW.3 and on 14.8.2001 at 6.30 p.m. arrested the 2nd accused at Vadamoor Colony Vaikkal and recorded his confession statement in the presence of PW.6 Rathinam and PW.7 Sivakumar and on the basis of his confession statement, seized MO.1 Koduval under Ex.P4 mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. The Appellant voluntarily surrendered and they were sent to judicial custody. After completing investigation, PW.10 filed a final report against the accused under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC along with MO.1 under Form-95.
3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.94/2002 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.10} and also relied on Exs.P1 to P9 and one material object (MO.1).
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.
5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available, acquitted the 2nd accused of all charges and found the first accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.
7. The case of the Prosecution is that on 11.8.2001 at about 4.00 p.m. the Appellant abused PW.2 Pannerselvam and with regard to it, a memorandum was submitted to PW.3 the Secretary of Youth Association, but the Appellant refused to participate in the Panchayat that was called by PW.3 and on the next day on 12.8.2001 at 4.45 p.m. the Appellant and his father came and attacked PW.2 with an aruval saying that the Panchayat would be held only if PW.2 was alive and attacked PW.2 on his head which was warded off by PW.2 and the said cut fell on his right forearm and again attacked him and it fell on his left hand and wrist. Thus, PW.2 sustained two injuries, one on his left hand and the other on the right hand and sustained fracture on both hands.
8. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and found the Appellant guilty under Section 324 of IPC, but however, the court below acquitted his father the 2nd accused S.Rajakumar.
9. The learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously contended that there is a material contradiction regarding the place of occurrence and that apart, PW.6 and PW.7 have not supported the recovery of weapon allegedly used by the Appellant.
10. According to the PW.1’s evidence, he along with PW.3 and PW.4 went to the grocery shop in Neduncheriputhur road to buy beedi and cigarette and saw A1 attacking the PW.2 with an aruval. PW.3 has also spoken to the effect of naming the grocery shop as that of Saroja’s Shop. He would state that PW.2 was standing 10 ft. away from them and at that time the Appellant and his father (A2) came there and the Appellant gave cut injuries to PW.2. PW.2 has stated that he came to the Saroja’s petty shop along with PW.1 and PW.3 and PW.4 and was standing a little away from them and at that time, the Appellant and his father came there and the Appellant attacked him with a knife on his head, which when warded off by him fell on his right hand and again the Appellant attacked him with the knife and when again he warded off, it fell on his left hand.
11. PW.1 has stated that the occurrence took place in front of Saroja’s petty shop and PW.3 also stated so. He would state that the incident occurred in between Saroja’s shop and the road. From the evidence of Pw.2, it could only be inferred that the incident occurred near Saroja’s Shop. In Ex.P7 plan, the place of occurrence is shown in front of Ganesan’s petty shop and Saroja is the wife of Ganesan.
12. It is true that there are few discrepancies as to the location of place of occurrence in the deposition of witnesses while they were examined in cross, but that does not make any dent on the case of the Prosecution. It is equally true that PW.1 has said that the statement given by him was reduced into writing by the police whereas PW.3 deposed that he wrote the complaint on being stated by PW.1, but that does not discredit the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3. PW.1 to PW.3 have spoken to about the occurrence from its inception and they have been found to be not only consistent, but truthful and reliable. Despite certain minor discrepancies or variations on certain insignificant matters and that too not on relevant and vital aspects of the case on a thorough reading of the evidence it inspires confidence as rightly accepted by the court below. The discrepancies pointed out cannot be considered to falsify the case of the Prosecution when it otherwise sufficiently established by cogent and convincing oral evidence.
13. The first information report was lodged at 6.15 a.m. in the next morning. The occurrence had taken place at about 4.45 or 5.00 p.m. on 11.8.2001. The injured witness PW.2 was taken to the Chidambaram Government Hospital, where he had been referred to Raja Muthiah Hospital by the Doctor in Chidambaram Government Hospital. But, as injury was grievous PW.2 had been taken to Stanley Hospital by his family members. PW.6 Doctor Kalaichelvi has testified to the fact that PW.2 was brought to the Hospital with cut injuries on his right and left hands, which is consistent with the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3. PW.1 to PW.3 have stated that PW.2 was attacked with MO.1 and have identified the weapon before the court. PW.6 and PW.7 have spoken to the fact of recovery of the weapon in their chief examination, though denied the same in the cross examination. PW.8 Dr.Kalaiselvi has stated that the injury is likely to be caused by MO.1 weapon. The above said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.10 the investigating officer whose evidence has not been discredited in any manner.
14. The Prosecution version has to be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. Much emphasis is laid by the learned counsel for the Appellant on the minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3. PW.1 and PW.3 are independent witnesses. The eye witnesses examined in the trial cannot be said to the chance witnesses as they were the residents of the same locality and the presence of eye witnesses is quite natural. They had no cause to give false evidence. Accordingly, their testimonies cannot be discarded. PW.2 is the injured witness and there is absolutely no reason to discard his evidence.
15. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by PW.2 and considering the medical evidence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant under Section 324 of IPC. Though the injuries suffered PW.2 is not on vital parts, but the cut injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature as he had sustained fracture on both hands. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 324 is confirmed. But, however considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment of the Appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant and he is imposed a fine of Rs.7500/- in addition to the fine already imposed. On such fine being paid, the same shall be paid to PW.2 as compensation.
16. In the result, with the above modification in imposition of sentence alone, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
Srcm
To:
1.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras