Partly allowed

Natarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Aug 2017CRL RC/1408/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revision to modify Criminal Revision Case judgment. Court confirmed conviction for offences under Sections 452 and 324 IPC, reduced substantive sentence to period of custody undergone by accused, and enhanced fine to Rs. 5,000 per offence with 3 months S.I.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period undergone. Fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per offence with 3 months S.I.

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1408 of 2011

¶6

Natarajan S/o.Maruthamalai Gounder … Petitioner/Accused

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.26 of 2011) … Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned Additional Districtcum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur, passed in C.A.No.157 of 2011 on 24.08.2011 modifying the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Coimbatore District, passed in C.C.No.584 of 2003 on 07.07.2011.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramkumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul Additional Public Prosecutor *****

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This revision is preferred against the judgment of learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur, passed in C.A.No.157 of 2011 on 24.08.2011.

¶13

Prosecution case is that owing to a dispute over irrigation rights, petitioner/accused entered the house of PW-2 and struck blows to the head and shoulder of PW-2, mother of PW-1 on 15.01.2010 at about 7 a.m. A case in Crime No.26 of 2001 was registered by respondent police for offences under Sections 452 and 324 IPC and after filing charge sheet, petitioner was tried in C.C.No.584 of 2003 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

¶14

Before trial Court, prosecution examined 5 witnesses and marked 5 exhibits. None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 07.07.2011, convicted petitioner/accused for offence u/s.452 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s 452 IPC and 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d 1 month R.I. for offence u/s.324 IPC. There against, petitioner/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.157 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur. Appellate Court, under judgment dated 24.08.2011, modified the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I for offence under Section 452 IPC and modified the conviction for offence u/s.324 IPC to one u/s.323 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. Hence, this revision.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner has sought to impress upon this Court that a false case stands foisted against petitioner/accused owing to a pending civil dispute over irrigation rights, that the First Information Report was registered belatedly and the same reached the Court only 7 days later, that neither the wooden log allegedly used by accused nor blood samples had been lifted from the place of occurrence and hence, the case is one where petitioner ought to be acquitted.

¶17

PW-2 clearly has spoken to the manner in which he suffered an attack at the hands of petitioner/accused and on his unlawfully entering her house. She has suffered injuries both to the head and shoulder as reflected in Ex.P3, wound certificate. Though Ex.P3 would indicate that PW-2 has suffered a fracture to the head, appellate Court, in the absence of X-ray or other medical reports, rightly has found petitioner/accused guilty of offence u/s.323 IPC. The occurrence is of date 15.01.2010. The rival parties are immediate relatives, petitioner/accused being the paternal uncle of PW-1 and brother-in-law of PW-2. Admittedly, there is dispute over irrigation rights between the parties. Petitioner has undergone custody for 13 days. Requiring petitioner to suffer any further incarceration at this distance point of time would only open old wounds. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court considers it appropriate and accordingly, confirms the finding of conviction and reduces the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone but enhances the fine to a sum of Rs.5,000/- in respect of each offence i/d 3 months S.I.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as indicated above.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS ix) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

kmi/gm
To
1.The Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court-V, Tiruppur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Palladam.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sulur Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai-104.
+1cc to Mr.C.Ramkumar , Advocate SR.No. 60345
Crl.R.C.No.1408 of 2011
ASK(26/09/2018)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Natarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Re by Vs Baiya

K.Palaniswamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

N. Saravanakumar, Age 31 Yrs, Vs the State Rep. by the Station

R.Kanniappan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Veeran Vs State by

Annammal Vs the State Rep by