Allowed

Sivamani v. State by

Madras HC6 Aug 2021CRL A/228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a criminal appeal preferring by two convicted appellants against their conviction and sentence for attempt to murder. The Court upheld the conviction but reduced the rigorous imprisonment term from ten years to five years.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed in part with sentence reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment; fine kept intact.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

The Petiioners / Appellants / Accused No 3 & 4 Viz namely
1) Sivamani aged about 28 years S/O Egambaram 2) Dineshkumar aged
about 26 years S/O Sundaresan will released on bail
dated:01/06/2015 made in MP 1/2015 in Crl.A.No.228/2015 on the
file of this Court.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 28.04.2021

¶5

 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 06.08.2021

¶6

CORAM

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶8

Crl.A.No.228 of 2015

¶9

1. Sivamani

¶10

2. Dinesh Kumar... Appellants/Accused Nos.3 & 4

¶11

 ..Vs..

¶12

State represented by the
Inspector of Police,
Vellore Taluk Police Station,
Vellore District.
[Crime No.409 of 2012]

Sivamani Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, as against the judgment and sentence
passed by the learned (District Sessions Judge Training),
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District,
in S.C.No.84 of 2013, dated 08.04.2015, convicting the appellants
under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶20

Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, in S.C.No.84 of 2013,
dated 08.04.2015, convicting the appellants for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each,
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶21

2 [i]. The case of the prosecution as could be seen from
the records is that there was previous enmity between P.W.1 and
A.1/Thilagaraj, regarding lane dispute and civil suit is also
pending between them. During the pendency of the civil suit, an
Advocate Commissioner was appointed; out of 78 feet lane, 30 feet
were allotted to P.W.1/Prakash @ Chinnaraj and he fixed fencing
around his land and due to that A.1 having vengeance over him and
15 days prior to the occurrence, wordy altercation arose between
A.1 and P.W.1. In continuation of the quarrel, A.1 decided to do
away P.W.1 with the help of the accused 2 to 5 and they were
conspired together; due to the conspiracy, on 15.09.2012 at about
03.15 p.m., when P.W.1 was in his Grocery Shop, on the
instigation of A.1/Thilagaraj, A.2/Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar and
the appellants viz., A.3/Sivamani and A.4/Dinesh Kumar and
A.5/Jegan @ Jegannathan were went there; A.2 abused P.W.1 with
filthy language and also beaten him on his chin with hand and
these appellants/A.3 and A.4 tried to attack P.W.1 with knife;
P.W.1 escaped from their attack and caught hold their hands and
as a result of which, P.W.1 sustained abrasion injuries on his
left thumb and on hearing his alarm, P.W.2 mother of P.W.1 came
and rescued and at that time, A.5 namely, Jegan @ Jegannathan
attacked her with cool drinks bottle on her back and thereby
caused simple injury.

¶22

[ii]. In the meanwhile, the neighbours came to the scene
of occurrence and tried to save P.W.1 and on seeing them, the
accused 2 and 5 escaped in an Auto and these appellants were
caught red handed by the villagers and they were tied in a Pillor
post and thereafter, they were produced before the respondent
police.

¶23

[iii]. On receipt of the complaint/Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, the
respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.409 of 2012
for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307
r/w. 109 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the
respondent police has filed final report before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore, for the offences under
Sections 120(B), 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 r/w. 115 of IPC.

¶24

[iv]. After observing the formalities, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter, the learned
Principal Sessions Judge made over the same to the learned
[District Sessions Judge Training], Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Vellore, Vellore District, for disposal. After completion
of trial, the learned [District Sessions Judge Training)

¶26

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District
acquitted the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 from all the charges and
convicted the appellants/A.3 and A.4 for the offence under
Section 307 of IPC alone and acquitted them from other charges.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/A.3 and A.4 would
contend that as per the evidence of P.W.13-Dr.M.V.Pradeep Anand,
P.W.2 had complained of pain on her back and there is no evidence
excepting the alleged commission of the offence under Section 307
IPC. Besides, the learned counsel has submitted that there is a
delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court and the earlier
complaint is burked by the prosecution.

¶29

4. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution
has examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and produced
M.O.1 [two knifes]. P.W.1/Prakash @ Chinnaraj and P.W.2/Indirani
are the injured witnesses. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.3
is the sister of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the attestors of the
confession statement and arrest while P.W.5 turned hostile so
also P.Ws.6 and 7. The attestors of Ex.P.4-observation mahazar
are P.Ws.8 and 9. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the hostile witnesses.
P.W.12 is the police witness, who could depose regarding the
registration of Ex.P.7-FIR and arrest of the accused produced by
the general public and recovery of M.O.1 [two knifes]. P.W.13 is
the Doctor, who had given treatment to P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued
Ex.P.8-Wound certificate to P.W.2 and Ex.P.9-Wound Certificate to
P.W.1.

¶30

5. Though charges have been framed as against all the
five accused for the offences under Sections 120 (B), 294(b),
323, 324 and 307 r/w. 115 IPC, after trial, except the appellants
viz., A.3 and A.4, all other accused viz., A.1, A.2 and A.5 were
acquitted from all the charges by the learned [District Sessions
Judge Training], Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore.
As against the order of acquittal, the State has not preferred
any appeal.

¶31

6. The motive for the attack and assault on P.W.1 and
P.W.2 is said to be previous enmity in connection with lane
dispute. Regarding the lane dispute, civil suit is also pending
and in the Civil Suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to
inspect the land over which P.W.1 and the first accused had
dispute. As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, out of 78
feet lane, 30 feet lane has to go to P.W.1 and 48 feet lane has
to go to the first accused. Based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, the learned Sessions Judge, has come to the conclusion
that there existence of previous enmity between P.W.1 and the
first accused and due to the previous enmity, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are

¶34

7. For the reasons recorded therein, A.1, A.2 and A.5
were acquitted from all the charges and the appellants herein/A.3
and A.4 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. As to the
act of A.3 and A.4 on the body of P.W.1, it is categorically
deposed by P.W.1 that both A.3 and A.4 have attacked him with
knife and when he prevented the attack, he sustained injury on
his forearm. The said evidence is duly corroborated by the
medical evidence of P.W.13-Doctor, who had issued Exs.P.8 and
P.9-wound certificates. During the course of the occurrence, on
hearing hue and cry, P.W.2, who is inside the shop, came out to
rescue P.W.1. At that time, A.5 also attacked P.W.2 with soda
bottle and as a result of which, she sustained abrasion injury in
the back of the body and thus, the presence of P.W.2 is also duly
proved by the medical evidence of Doctor. The medical evidence
of the Doctor is to the effect that both P.Ws.1 and 2 have
sustained injury due to the assault on 15.09.2012 also assumes
significance and lends support to the prosecution theory. In
view of the fact that the appellants/A.3 and A.4 were caught red
handed by the general public and there is no dispute about the
identification of the accused also assumes significance.

¶35

8. P.W.3, in the chief examination, has categorically
stated that in view of the smart action of P.W.1, A.3 and A.4
were caught hold of by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on hearing the hue and
cry, P.W.3 went to the shop of P.W.1 and A.3 and A.4 were caught
red handed with the help of the village people and taken custody
of those accused and tied them in the public street light lamp
and after intervention, P.W.3, who is the Secretary of the
Panchayat level federation association, has intimated to the
police and handed over the appellants/A.3 and A.4 along with the
weapons used by them. In view of the specific evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2 and P.W.4 [independent witness] coupled with the fact that
the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 along with the weapons which
have been detained by the general public and the appellants/A.3
and A.4 were tied in the public street light lamp clearly lends
support to the prosecution theory and hence, the learned Sessions
Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that had not P.W.1 was
diligent and smart enough to the act of the appellants/A.3 and
A.4 on the body of P.W.1 could have been fatal to the life of
P.W.1. In view of the smart act of P.W.1, he has sustained injury
on his forehead which is duly corroborated by the medical
evidence of P.W.13-Doctor and Exs.P.8 and P.9-wound certificates.
P.Ws.3 and 4 are the independent witnesses. P.W.3, the Secretary
of the Panchayat level federation association had informed the
police regarding the assault made by the appellants on P.W.1 and
hence, I find that the conviction laid by the trial Court is just
and proper in respect of the charge under Section 307 IPC and
thus, with regard to the charge under Sections 120(B), 294(b),

¶37

323 and 324 IPC against A.3 and A.4, basing upon the version of
P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 6 and 10 goes to show that on hearing the hue and
cry of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went there and caught hold of these
appellants/A.3 and A.4 and tied them in the public street lamp
post and on arrival of P.W.3, an intimation was given to the
police and P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police registered FIR and
arrested the accused and also recovered M.O.1 handed over by
P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thus, I find that these appellants/A.3
and A.4 were caught red handed by the village peoples. The
appellants/A.3 and A.4 were caught hold of by the general public
and subsequently, an observation mahazar and seizure mahazar as
per law were executed by the police witness and hence, the
conviction laid by the learned [District Sessions Judge Training]
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, for the offence
under Section 307 IPC is just and proper and the same does not
suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting
interference by this Court at this appellate stage.

¶38

9. The presence of the appellants/A.3 and A.4 in the shop
of P.W.1 along with weapons is clearly demonstrated by the
evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and these appellants/A.3 and A.4 were
caught red handed; tied in the public street lamp post and handed
over to the police by the Village people cannot be brush aside
slightly.

¶40

11. The learned counsel for the appellants/A.3 and A.4
would contend that P.W.1 has not sustained any grievous injury on
his vital parts and without any medical evidence, the learned
Sessions Judge has awarded maximum punishment against the
appellants/A.3 and A.4 and the same is against the principles of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said contention of
the learned counsel for the appellants/A.3 and A.4 has been
considered.

¶41

12 (a). An offence under Section 307 IPC is in essence
equal to Section 302 IPC, less death. Thus, to constitute an
offence under Section 307 IPC, the evidence must have all the
ingredients of offence under Section 302 IPC. But the victim
must escape death. In other words, if the victim survives the
injuries, it will be a charge for the offence under Section 307
IPC and if he succumbed to injury, it will be a charge under
Section 302 IPC and thus, for the charge under Section 307 IPC,
the victim survives of the injury and sans death.

¶42

12 (b). On the point of quantum of punishment, the seat
of the injury; size of the injury on the vital part of the body;
type of the weapons used and the manner of using the weapons are
the factors, which fall under Section 307 IPC.

¶44

12 (c). In the instant case, the seat of the injury and
size of the injury is minor in nature and not on the vital part.
However, the type of the weapons and the manner of using the
weapons as deposed by P.W.1 could certainly amounts to satisfy
the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC and hence,
the conviction imposed by the learned [District Sessions Judge
Training], Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, for the
offence under Section 307 IPC is hereby confirmed.

¶49

15. The learned [District Sessions Judge Training],
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, is hereby required
to issue Non-bailable Warrant to secure the convicted
appellants/A.3 and A.4 to undergo the remaining period of
sentence in accordance with law.

Sivamani v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Bhavanikumar, M/38 Years Vs J.Sangeethalakshmi, F/35 Years

The State Rep. by Vs Vinothkumar

Joshine Antony, W/O.Antony Vs the State Representd by

Adam, Age 37 Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Sivamani v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Bhavanikumar, M/38 Years Vs J.Sangeethalakshmi, F/35 Years

The State Rep. by Vs Vinothkumar

Joshine Antony, W/O.Antony Vs the State Representd by

Adam, Age 37 Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

A compact analysis

S.Thirunavukkarasu, M/a 44 Vs E.Athikeasavan, M/a 68 Yearss

Ramesh Vs State by