In a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt via assault with an iron rod, the court examined contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding the number of assailants and injuries sustained.
The sentence imposed on the petitioner was reduced from two years to one year of simple imprisonment.
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.741 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
Palaniappan
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State by The Sub Inspector of Police, Namagiripettai Police Station, Namagiripettai, Namakkal District. (Crime No.818 of 2008) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the entire records in so far relates to order passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in C.A.No.39 of 2015, dated 26.04.2018 whereby confirming the order passed in C.C.No.147 of 2009, dated 20.08.2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Namakkal District and set aside the same.
Page 1 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in C.A.No.39 of 2015 dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.147 of 2009, dated 20.08.2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Namakkal District, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 326 of IPC.
Page 2 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo three months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
were contradictions between the prosecution witness and as such the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. P.W.2, who happened to be the witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. There was contradiction to whether the victim lost one tooth or 2 teeth. There is no evidence to prove that the petitioner caused injury on the victim. In fact, the victim was examined as P.W.1. He stated that he was assaulted by three known persons before P.W.7 who had treated him. Whereas, the respondent registered a case as against two accused persons. He would also submit that the Page 3 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
Investigating Officer had not seized the weapons used in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal from all the charges.
that the victim was examined as P.W.1, whose evidence was supported by P.W.3 and P.W.4. The Doctor, who examined the victim was examined as P.W.7. She issued wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P3. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved its case and the Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner.
go to Court?. Thereafter, A1 attacked the victim, by an iron rod, on his cheek https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
and right leg. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Rasipuram. On recording his statement, the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 294(b) and 326 of IPC. The FIR was marked as Ex.P5. The victim was examined as P.W.1. He deposed that A1 attacked him on his cheek and right leg, due to which, he had sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, where he was treated by P.W.7.
to the case of the prosecution. Hence, both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and this Court finds no reason to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
considering the age of the petitioner, the sentence imposed on the petitioner may be reduced. Considering the submission, the conviction as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of IPC is hereby confirmed and the sentence imposed on the petitioner alone is reduced from two years to one year.
10.11.2022
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn
To
3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Namagiripettai Police Station, Namagiripettai, Namakkal District.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
mn
Page 6 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2018
10.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the petitioner for voluntarily causing grievous hurt can be sustained given the contradictions in prosecution evidence.
Whether the sentence of two years simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is excessive and warrants reduction.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Palaniappan
The State by The Sub Inspector of Police, Namagiripettai
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
