Loading...

Raghu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2009

Madras High Court
Raghu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:3.8.2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.R.C.No.652 of 2007

Raghu						...  Petitioner 

vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Attampetti Police Station,
Salem.						...  Respondent 
 
  Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Principal Session Judge, Salem in C.A.No.122 of 2006 modifying the judgement dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, in C.C.69 of 2004.

		For Petitioner       :   Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
		For Respondent    :   Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.

	               O R D E R	

Animadverting upon the order dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Principal Session Judge, Salem in C.A.No.122 of 2006 modifying the judgement dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem, in C.C.69 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.

2. Compendiously and precisely, the facts which are 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 accused for the offence under Sections 311, 323, 324, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted.

(b) During enquiry, on the prosecution side P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the accuseds’ side no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

(c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under:-

Case No
Offence
Punishment
C.C.No.69 of 2004
Sec.324 IPC A1
One year rigorous imprisonment

(d) Challenging and impugning the order of the lower Court, the appeal in C.A.No.122 of 2006 was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, which Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment.

3. Being dissatisfied and disconcerted with the judgements of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, at the time of making his arguments, would make a supine submission to the effect that he is restricting his arguments only regarding the reduction of sentence.

4. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentence of six months substantive imprisonment imposed by the appellate Court is sustainable in law or whether it is not in accordance with the well established principle of penalogy.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat that but for the factum of finding by theh lower Court that one tooth of the injured had fallen down, the remaining injuries are simple one and it is quite evident from the medical records and accordingly, he prayed that no sentence of imprisonment might be awarded.

6. Whereas the learned Government Advocate would submit that this is a serious offence as the accused attacked the injured so vehemently and forcibly, fiercely and ferociously, which resulted in the injured losing one of his teeth. Accordingly, the Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

7. At this juncture, I would like to extract hereunder the injuries observed by the Doctor-P.W.9.

“(i)Lacerated injury on the right upper lip to the extent of 4X1X1 c.m.

(ii) Lacerated injury on the left cheek to the extent of 5X3X2 c.m.

(iii) Lacerated injury on the left leg thumb to an extent of 1X1X1 c.m. And

(iv) Fall of tooth”

8. A plain reading of the above would reveal and display that except the injury relating to falling of the tooth, all other injuries are simple in nature. The age of the accused was 25, at the time of occurrence. As such, taking into consideration these factors, I am of the view that the sentence of six months simple imprisonment could be reduced.

9. The learned Government Advocate would submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner underwent 15 days detention.

10. Taking into consideration the age of the accused and that he is not a recidivist and furthermore, the occurrence itself took place due to some misunderstanding between the injured and the accused, I am of the view that imposing 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC would meet the ends of justice. However, while reducing the same, I am inclined to impose fine also on the accused and accordingly, a fine of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) is imposed, in default, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The fine amount collected shall be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If the fine amount imposed here is not paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, this modified sentence will not enure to the benefit of the revision petitioner and the order passed by the appellate Court shall hold good. Regarding the 15 days substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by this Court, as stated by the learned Government Advocate if the revision petitioner had already underwent the detention, then he need not be committed to jail to undergo the 15 days imprisonment or otherwise he shall be made to undergo such imprisonment.

The criminal revision case is partly allowed.

msk								03.8.2009	
						G.RAJASURIA,J.

								Msk

Internet:Yes/No
Index: Yes/No						



To
1. The Principal Session Judge, Salem.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem
  	





Crl.R.C.No.652 of 2007














							3.8.2009

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information