M. Mannar Vs State by S.I of Police

¶1

BAIL SLIP

¶2

The Appellant/Accused namely M.Mannar, S/o. (Late)
Munusamy, was directed to be released on bail as per order of
this Court dated 22/09/2015 in CRL.M.P.No.1 of 2015 in
CRL.R.C.No.981 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 18.08.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

CRL.R.C.NO.981 OF 2015

¶8

M. Mannar

¶9

.. Petitioner/Appellant/1st Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State rep.by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Vellore South L & O Police Station,
Vellore District.
Crime No.787/2012.

¶12

.. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
judgment passed in Crl.A.No.59 of 2014 dated 16.06.2015 on the
file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Vellore
confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.48 of 2013 dated
05.07.2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore
and set aside the same.

¶14

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Doraisamy

¶15

For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinoth Raja,
 Government Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

 ORDER

¶18

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

¶19

2. The convicted first accused is the revision
petitioner herein.

¶20

3. The case of the petitioner is that

¶21

3(a) on 24.12.2012 at about 3.45 pm, the first
accused/Mannar had written filthy words in a board hanging in
front of his residence by defaming the reputation of P.W.2/Latha
and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, enraged
over the same, the appellant along with one Padma had scolded
the defacto complainant in filthy language, in the course of
same transaction, the appellant had beaten the defacto
complainant on his head with wooden log and poured acid on the
left side of the cheek and caused grievous injury and that one
another accused Padma had assaulted the defacto complainant with
her hands and legs and caused simple injury to him and also both
the appellant and one another accused had threatened the defacto
complainant with dire consequence to his breathe and thereby,
the appellant and one another accused had committed offences
punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC.

¶22

3(b) The respondent-police filed a final report in Crime
No.787/2012, before the Vellore South L & O Police station,
Vellore, alleging that appellant was charged for the offences
punishable under Section 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 326 of IPC and
the appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence under
Section 326 of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I.,
for one and half years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to undergo S.I., for three months. Out of total fine
amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid to victim as
compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Further, the
appellant is found not guilty for the offences under Section
294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and thereby, acquitted.

¶23

4. During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.10
were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 have been marked and the
material objects which are marked as MOs.1 to 4. On the side of
the appellant no oral or documentary evidence was placed before
the trial Court. After hearing both sides, the learned Judicial

¶24

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

¶25

Magistrate found the appellant guilty for the offence under
Section 326 of IPC and convicted as aforesaid, apart from
acquitting for the offences under Section 294(b), 323 and
506(ii) of IPC.

¶26

5. The learned Magistrate has held that charge under
Section 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC was not made out.
Accordingly, acquitted the first accused and convicted the
accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and acquitted
the second accused in entirety. Appeal filed by the appellant
in Crl.A.No.59/2014, is dismissed and hence the revision.

¶27

6. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner would contend that in the absence of any chemical
report as to the chemical nature of the alleged content in MO.3,
the trial Court ought not to have convicted under Section 326 of
IPC. The seizure mahazar was not proved in the manner known to
law and due to the previous enmity, the false case has been
foisted against A1. Further, on the point of quantum of
punishment, the learned counsel also submitted that the revision
petitioner is 71 years old and he is suffering from cancer and
taking treatment.

¶28

7. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the
respondent made a submission in support of the order passed by
the Courts below.

¶29

8. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the
records, the only charge against the revision petitioner is
under Section 326 of IPC. The case of the prosecution as could
be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 is that in front of the house
of the first accused, he has written filthy words in front of
his house whereby, some defamatory words touching the reputation
of P.W.2/Latha, (wife of P.W.1), which has led to enraged over
the said incident, the alleged incidence said to have occurred.

¶30

9. Records reveals that the investigation has not seized
the alleged board said to be containing filthy words. Neither
the P.W.1 nor P.W.2, have stated that the filthy words written
on the hanging board in front of the accused house. As per
Ex.P9 rough sketch, the alleged incident is said to have been
taken place in front of the house of the accused, assumes
significance. The reason for going to the accused house was

¶31

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

¶32

deposed by P.W.1. Since against his wife- P.W.2, certain
defamatory words have been written in front of the board hanging
in front of the accused house. It remains to be stated that the
evidence P.W.2 and P.W.3, as could be seen from the cross
examination are to the effect that only after incidence of
P.W.1, they came to the scene. The attestor of the seizure
mahazar is Ex.P10 and observation mahazar, viz., P.W.5 has
turned hostile. In respect of the eye witness, P.W.6/Selvi, has
not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

¶33

10. Admittedly, MO.3/empty bottle, is said to have been
seized from the scene of the crime. According to the
prosecution, it is an empty bottle said to have contained acid.
For the reasons not known, the investigation officer has not
send the bottle, for Forensic, what was inside the bottle/MO.3
would likely to cause damage to the alleged of P.W.1. The
Doctor/P.W.2, who had initially given treatment for P.W.1 had
issued Ex.P6 wound certificate and further, treatment was given
by P.W.9/Doctor-Senthamarai Kannan, who had issued wound
certificate under Ex.P7, to show that P.W.1 has suffered a
grievous injury in the eye and the opinion is to the effect it
is truthfully as if, said to have been thrown on the face, as
spoken to by P.W.1. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not send
MO.3/bottle to ascertain the nature of the content said to have
been inside MO.3.

¶34

11. In the absence of any forensic report as to the
nature of the substance, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC
is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is modified under
Section 324 of IPC and the substantial period of sentence is
already been underwent is set off and the compensation of
Rs.10,000/- is hereby confirmed.

¶35

12. In view of this matter, the criminal revision case
is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

AT

¶41

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

¶42

`To`
`1.`	`The Judicial Magistrate No.I,` `Vellore.`
`2.`	`The Chief Judicial Magistrate,` `Vellore. (For Information)`
`3.`	`The Principal District and Sessions Judge,` `Vellore.`
`4.`	`The Sub Inspector of Police,` `Vellore South L & O Police Station,` `Vellore District.`
`5.`	`The Public Prosecutor(Criminal Side),` `High Court of Madras.`
`6.`	`The Section Officer,` `Criminal Section,` `High Court, Madras.`
`+1c`	`c to M/s.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.41347`
	`Crl.R.C.No.981 of 2015`
`SRA`	`(CO)`
`RLP`	`(12/10/2021)`

¶43

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

M. Mannar v. State by S.I of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Mannar v. State by S.I 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

S.Shanmugam Vs State Rep. by

Sarapoji Vs State Rep. by

Senthilkumar Vs State Rep. by

Pappathi, W/O.Seerangan, Vs the State of Tn., Rep.by the

A.Paramasivam Vs K.Balasubramaniam

A.K.Mani Vs the State Rep by