Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 3225
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM
Pakkirisamy & Others - Appellant
Versus
State, by the Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.388 of 1999
Decided On : 27 November 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on medical evidence and witness testimony to establish guilt in cases of assault and grievous hurt.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Assault causing multiple injuries - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 307 IPC, Section 326 IPC - The court discussed the injuries sustained by the victim, the evidence provided by witnesses, and the legal provisions related to assault and grievous hurt. The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence and witness testimony in establishing the guilt of the accused. The judgment highlighted the legal principles related to evidence, witness credibility, and the gravity of injuries in determining the appropriate charges and sentencing.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 326 IPC for assaulting the victim causing multiple injuries. The prosecution presented evidence of the assault and the injuries sustained by the victim. The appellants challenged the conviction on various grounds including the number of assailants, credibility of witnesses, and non-examination of certain individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries sustained by the victim were severe and corroborated by medical evidence. The witness testimony was deemed credible, and the court rejected the challenges to the conviction. The court also upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witness testimony, the severity of the injuries, and the legal interpretation of assault and grievous hurt under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence and witness testimony in establishing guilt. It also clarified the legal principles related to evidence, witness credibility, and the gravity of injuries in determining appropriate charges and sentencing.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellants were directed to surrender to serve the remaining period of the sentence.
(Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C., as against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.1999, rendered in Sessions Case No.21 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.)
The appellants, as accused, faced the trial in Sessions Case No.21 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, for the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas they were found guilty only under Section 326 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/= each in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, which is impugned in this appeal by all.
2. On 11.10.1997, at about 2.15 a.m. (Night hours), according to the prosecution, all the accused, aiming the life of one Gopalakrishnan, assaulted him with patta knives, thereby caused multiple injuries and the acts of the accused should come within the meaning of Section 307 IPC. Thus alleging, a final report came to be filed, followed by committal, then at the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, framing charges, questioning the accused, on their refusal to plead guilty, resulting trial, ending in conviction.
3. The brief facts, leading to this appeal:
(a) Thiru Ashok Kumar-P.W.1, Thiru Gopalakrishnan-P.W.3 and Thiru Stalin-P.W.4 are the residents of same place of Nannilam. Gopalakrishnan, brother-in-law of P.W.1 was the Secretary of Auto, Car Drivers Association. P.W.1 though belongs to Thiruvarur, staying with P.W.3, looking after his business.
(b) On 10.10.1997, P.Ws.1,3,4 and others have celebrated 'Ayuthapooja' and the function came to an end by 1.30 night i.e. early morning of 11.10.1997.
(c) For celebrating 'Ayuthapooja' festival, the association had printed pamphlets, in which the name of the first appellant was omitted to be included, though he was the Secretary of DMK, Nannilam, which was questioned by A.1, followed by wordy altercation, resulting strained relationship.
(d) After the 'Ayuthapooja' function was over at about 1.30 a.m., P.Ws.1,3 and 4 went to the house of P.W.3, in order to finalise the accounts of expenditure, for 'Ayuthapooja'. P.W.3 went 15' ahead, in order to open the door, followed by P.Ws.1 and 4. At that time, all the accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked P.W.3 indiscriminately, aiming his life, which was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 4. Because of the assault, P.W.3 not only lost one finger but also sustained many bleeding cut injuries, which caused him to fall unconscious. On seeing this, all the accused, under the hope P.W.3 died, left the place, which was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 4 in the light, which was burning in the veranda, just in front of the house of P.W.7.
(e) After the accused left the scene of crime, P.W.1 took P.W.3 and admitted him in the Government Hospital, from where the matter was informed to the Police. When the police came to the hospital, P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1 complaint, since P.W.3 was unconscious, unable to speak.
(f) On the basis of Ex.P.1 complaint, a case came to be registered in Cr.No.703 of 1997 on the file of Nannilam Police Station, by P.W.10, for which printed FIR-Ex.P.2 was sent to court immediately. Thereafter, P.W.10, rushing to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P.5, sketch-Ex.P.12 and recorded the statements of witnesses also.
(g) The Doctor-P.W.2, who treated P.W.3, at the first instance, and the Doctor-P.W.8, who had taken X-rays and the Doctor-P.W.9 who had further treated P.W.3, have given statements, to the Investigating Officer about the injuries sustained by P.W.3, under Exs.P.3 and P.4.
(h) The Investigating Officer also arrested the accused, and on the basis of the confession statement-Ex.P.7, he recovered the weapons-M.Os.1 and 2, under Ex.P.8. The recovered material objects were sent for chemical examination, which elicited Biology Report-Ex.P.14 and serology report-Ex.P.15. Obtaining opinion of the Doctor, regarding the injuries under Ex.P.11 and
