High Court allowed a criminal revision petition. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The petitioners were acquitted of all charges.
Impugned judgment setting aside sentence set aside and petitioners acquitted of all charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
... Petitioners
Vs.
The State represented by its, Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the order in Crl.A.No.02 of 2017 dated 07.08.2018 on the file of the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Arani, Thiruvannamalai District by modifying the Trial Court sentence made in S.C.No.90 of 2010 dated 21.06.2013 on the file of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, set-aside the same and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Dhayashankar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
Page 1 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.02 of 2017 dated 07.08.2018 on the file of the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, thereby modifying the Trial Court sentence made in S.C.No.90 of 2010 dated 21.06.2013 on the file of the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC.
Page 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
the accused persons came there and attacked him by knife. It was prevented by his uncle one Ramakrishnan. The accused also attacked him. When the defacto complainant's brother intercepted the fight, he was also attacked by the accused persons. Immediately, all the three were taken to the hospital. Hence, the complaint.
Page 3 of 16
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and marked Exs.D1 and D2. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. A1 was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. A1 was also sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. A2 was sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal. The First appellate Court modified the sentence imposed on the petitioners. Hence, this revision.
the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 13, in order to prove the charges, they failed to bring home the charges. The person who registered the FIR
Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
on the strength of the statement of P.W.1, was not examined by the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, there were two incidents which took place on 15.11.2009 and 16.11.2009. Whereas, the prosecution failed to investigate and also failed to file any charge sheet for both incidents. When the Trial Court found A3 and A4 were not guilty, the petitioners are also given same benefit, since on the strength of the same witnesses, the Trial Court found A3 and A4 as not guilty. There are contradictions between the prosecution witnesses in respect of injuries. The injuries stated by P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of Doctor. Further, the petitioners also sustained injuries in the occurrence. They were taken to Polur Government Hospital and they were treated by D.W.1. They were issued wound certificates which were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Without considering the injuries sustained by the petitioners, the respondent mechanically filed a final report without any explanation for the injuries sustained by them. It is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
by the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant and others, but convicted the petitioners alone. P.W.1 deposed that both A1 and A2 attacked him with knife, on his nose, forehead and cheek. Whereas, in his cross examination, he deposed that the first accused torn his forehead with knife and A2 had cut his left cheek. A perusal of medical records revealed that there was no injury on his left cheek. Therefore, no injury is corroborated with the medical report as alleged by P.W.1. The prosecution also failed to prove the weapon which was allegedly used in the crime.
submitted in order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had
Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to 11. Both the knives which were used by A1 and A2 were produced as M.O.1 and M.O.2. Though, the petitioners sustained injuries, those were all minor injuries and simple in nature. Whereas, the injury sustained by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are grievous in nature. A3 and A4 had no specific overtact and as such the said benefit cannot be given to the petitioners, since they had specific overtact and only because of their overtact, the injured witnesses sustained injuries. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the revision.
Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
on 16.11.2009, at about 06.00 p.m, all the accused came to the tea shop and attacked P.W.1. When P.W.3 intercepted, he was also attacked by the accused. P.W.4, who is the brother of P.W.1, also intercepted the quarrel and he was also attacked by the accused. The tea master was examined as P.W.5.
Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
However, the Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge as against A3 and A4 and acquitted them.
Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
failed to explain the injuries sustained by them. Unfortunately, both the Courts below recorded the reason that A1 and A2 sustained only simple injuries and P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 sustained grievous injuries. In fact, A1 and A2 categorically reported to D.W.1 that they were attacked by seven known persons.
Page 10 of 16
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
certificates which were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. A1 sustained five injuries and all the injuries are simple in nature. The injuries of A1 as follows,
“ 1) jiyapy; eLgFjpapy; xU fpHpe;j fhak; 421 br/kP mstpy; ,Ue;jJ/
The injuries sustained by A2 as follows,
“ 1) jiy gFjpapy; xU fpHpe;j fhak; 211 br/kP mst[ ,Ue;jJ/ nkYk; jir MHk;tiu ,Ue;jJ/
failed to explain the injuries sustained by the petitioners. Therefore, the
Page 11 of 16
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
case of the prosecution cannot be believed. Generally, the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not, wholly true. Further, where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants.
Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
on the prosecution to furnish proper explanation to the Court, how the person who has been accused of assaulting the injured, received injuries on his person in the same occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
Page 13 of 16
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
29.11.2022
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn
To
Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
mn
Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
Crl.R.C.No.1006 of 2018
29.11.2022
Page 16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons which should render the conviction unsustainable.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioners in view of the contradictions in prosecution evidence and lack of medical proof regarding the petitioners' injuries.
Whether the impugned judgment convicting the petitioners for offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (dead) and othersExplained¶13
2003 9 SCC 426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijayakumar
Senthilkumar
The State represented by its, Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
