Allowed

R.Rajesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Dec 2019CRL RC(MD)/127/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted under sections 294(b) and 326 IPC. Due to serious contradictions in prosecution evidence, including the complainant denying the complaint signature and inconsistencies regarding the number of attackers, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; revision petitioner acquitted; bail bond cancelled; fine refunded.

R.Rajesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶2

Bail Slip

¶3

R.Rajesh, (38/M (2015)), S/o.Raghavan was released on bail vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 24.03.2015 in MP(MD).No.1/2015 in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.127/2015

¶4

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶5

DATED : 18.12.2019

¶6

CORAM

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

¶8

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶9

R.Rajesh : Revision Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station,

¶12

Trichy. : Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Revision has been filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgement of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, in C.A.No.101 of 2014, dated 11.09.2014, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, in C.C.No.116 of 2013, dated 23.06.2014.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.APG. Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgement of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, passed in C.A.No.101 of 2014, dated 11.09.2014, confirming the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, passed in C.C.No.116 of 2013, dated 23.06.2014.

¶18

2.According to the prosecution, on 03.08.2012 when the defacto complainant went to Vignesh Hotel Bar, he saw one Sivaprakash, Muhamed Anees and Vinod there and hence, he went near them and sat in another table and at that time, Sivaprakash and Vinod abused him with obscene words and Vinod and Muhamed Aness assaulted him with beer bottle on his head and also threatened to kill him and since other persons came, the accused ran away. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/5

¶20

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶21

3.The trial court, on proper appreciation of the entire materials on record both oral and documentary convicted the petitioner/A3 for the offence under sections 294(b) and 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for 7 days and for the offence under section 326 IPC, sentenced him to undergo SI for 24 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner/A3 preferred appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court. Against which, the petitioner is before this court with this revision.

¶22

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

5.The contention raised on the side of the petitioner/A3 is that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in this case, there are two complaints and the earlier complaint was suppressed by the prosecution and there was no explanation regarding the same and moreover, it is pertinent to point out that one version was before the Doctor and another version before the police with severe contradictions regarding the number of accused and the contradictions between the prosecution witnesses were not properly appreciated by the courts below and the testimony of witnesses is untrustworthy and the same was duly uncorroborated by other witnesses and prays that the criminal revision is to be allowed.

¶24

6.In this case, PW1 is the injured and he gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in his complaint stated that on 02.08.2012 at 8.00 am, when he was going with goods in an Auto, which was driven by one Sivakumar, at Thirunagar Junction near Surya Tea Stall, when he went to ask the shop if they need soda, at that time, A3/Rajesh in 3 or 4 two wheeler about 6 or 7 persons came and Rajesh spoke obscene words against him and told him that they have been doing business since years ago and subsequently, by taking firewood attempted to assault on his face and as he blocked the hit, he sustained injury on the left hand and he sustained fracture. PW1 further deposed that A3/Rajesh shouted him saying that he is big wing in that area and threatened him saying that he will cut the neck and hit him 4 or 5 time continuously and due to it, he sustained fracture in both the hands.

¶25

7.PW1 during his evidence stated that on 02.08.2012 at 8.00 am, when he was going with goods in the Auto, at Thirunagar Junction near Surya Tea Stall, when he went to ask the shop if they need soda, at that time, A3/Rajesh in 3 or 4 two wheeler about 6 or 7 persons came and A3/Rajesh spoke obscene words against him and told him without regard why you are doing business here and they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been doing business since years ago and taking firewood

¶26

2/5

¶27

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶28

attempted to assault on his face and as he blocked the hit, he sustained injury on the left hand and also sustained fracture. PW1 further deposed that A3/Rajesh shouted him saying that he is big wing in the area and threatened him saying that he will cut his neck and his father neck and by saying so, A3/Rajesh hit him, 4 or 5 time continuously and as he attempted to block the hits, he sustained fracture in both hands.

¶29

8.In this case, PW1 deposed that he was unable to sign and he did not sign in the complaint statement and he denied the signature found in the complaint statement and also denied the contents found in Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 stated that he was assaulted by A3 only. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the cross examination of PW1, which would run thus:-

¶30

“ehd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; uhn$]; kl;Lk ; jhd; jhf;fpajhft[k ;

¶31

Vh;tho mrhUjPd; Mfpnahh; jhf;ftpy;iy vd;W brhd;d tpraj;ij g[fhhpy; ehd; brhy;ytpy;iy Vh;tho mrhUjPd; kw;Wk ; uhn$]; Mfpnahh; vd;id jhf;fpajhf g[fhhpy; brhy;yg ;gl ;oUe ;jhy; ehd; bfhLj;j g[fhh; my;y ehd; nghyPrplk; g[fhh; bfhLj;j gpwF ve;jtpj ifbaGj;Jk ; nghltpy;iy Vbdd;why; ehd; ifbaGj;J nghl Koahj epiyapy; ,Ue;jjhy; nghltpy;iy g[fhh; bfhLj;j gpwF me;j g[fhhpy; ehd; ifbaGj;J nghl;nld; vd;why; mJ vd;Dila g[fhh; ,y;iy nghyPrhh; tprhuizapYk; Vh;tho mrhUjPd; uhn$]; Mfpa 3 ngUk; jhf;fpajhf ehd; brhy;ytpy;iy uhn$]; kl;Lk ;jhd; jhf;fpajhf brhd;ndd;.

¶32

9.On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint signature was found. But PW1 denied that the signature found in Ex.P1 is not his signature.

¶33

10.At this juncture, is necessary to refer the evidence of the Doctor, who gave treatment to PW1. The Doctor, who gave treatment to PW1 was examined as PW5. PW5 deposed that on 02.08.2012 when she was on duty, PW1 was brought by his father and PW1 told her that he was assaulted by five known persons with wooden log at Karumandapam and he was conscious and she found the following injuries:-

¶34

“ (i)a bloody contusion of 10 x 7 cm in the left forehand;

¶35

(ii)a bloody contusion of 7 x 5 cm in the left forehand near the above injury;

¶36

(iii)a bloody contusion of 3 x 2 cms in the right elbow; and

¶37

(iv)a bloody contusion on x-raying the portion and it was found that there was a fracture in the ulna bone.”

¶38

11.While cross examining PW5, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has not put a question that due to injuries sustained by PW1, he was not in a position to sign in the complaint. The Doctor, who took X-ray for PW1 was examined as PW7. PW7 deposed that he took X-ray for the left and right hand of PW1 and he found fracture on the right wrist of PW1. It was not suggested to PW7 that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

3/5

¶40

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶41

PW1 was not in a position to sign.

¶42

12.PW1 during his evidence stated that A3 only attacked him with wooden log. But in his complaint statement stated that A1 to A3 assaulted him with wooden log. Further, he told PW5 Doctor, who gave him treatment that he was assaulted by five known persons. Hence, there are contradictions in respect of persons assaulted PW1. It is significant to note here that PW1 denied Ex.P1 complaint statement and he also denied the signature found in Ex.P1 complaint. Hence, it is his bounden duty to prove that Ex.P1 was not given by him. PW1 has not taken any steps to send Ex.P1 to Handwriting expert to prove that the signature found in Ex.P1 is not his signature. Further, he has not given any complaint to the superior officer of PW8, who recorded the statement of PW1 stating that Ex.P1 complaint was not given by him. The signatures found in the deposition of PW1 were compared by the court and found there were differences between the two signatures. PW1 himself admitted that he sustained injuries in his right hand. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the signature found in the complaint is not that of the complainant. The trial court as well as the first appellate without considering the above aspect concurrently given findings, which according to this court, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the courts below are set aside.

¶43

14.In the result, this Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The revision petitioner/A3 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The bail bond if any executed by him shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.

¶44

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶45

¶46

To,

¶47

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruchirappalli.

¶48

2.Do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy.

¶49

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

¶50

4/5

¶51

Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015

¶52

3.The Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.

¶53

4.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy.

¶54

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶55

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶56

+1 CC to M/s.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate ( SR-105972[F] dated 19/12/2019 )

¶57

Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2015 18.12.2019

¶58

JMN(23.03.2020) 5P : 7C

¶59

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

¶60

5/5

R.Rajesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajesh 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

Ravi Vs The Inspector of Police

Kannan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

K. Sivakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Karuppaian Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Jaffer Ali Vs the Inspector of Police