Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Veeran @ Veerasamy & Another
Versus
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police Ariyalur
Crl.A.No.831 of 2002
Decided on: 20-04-2009
IPC - Offence under Section 307 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 307, IPC Section 326, IPC Section 323 - The court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC but guilty of offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 323 IPC. The judgment discusses the evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under the respective sections.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with an offence under Section 307 IPC but found guilty of lesser offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 323 IPC. The prosecution's case involved an altercation between the accused and the victim, resulting in injuries to the victim. The trial court acquitted the accused of the Section 307 offence but convicted them under the lesser sections.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC but guilty of offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 323 IPC based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and medical evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the accused's guilt under the relevant sections of the IPC based on the evidence and witness testimonies presented during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evaluation of witness testimonies, contradictions in the evidence, and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under the respective sections of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions under Section 326 IPC and Section 323 IPC were upheld. The accused were directed to serve the remaining period of their sentences.
1. The accused 1 and 2 who were charged and tried for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur in S.C.No.40/2001 and found not guilty of the said offence, have come forward with the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. as the first appellant (first accused) was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine, whereas the second appellant (second accused) was found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under 323 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:-
i) PW-1 - Subramani is a native of Siruvachur village. PW-2 -Malarkodi is the wife of PW-1. During the relevant period, PW-1 and PW-2 were residing at Pallakrishnapuram, the place of the father-in-law of PW-1. The appellants 1 and 2 (accused 1 and 2) are brothers. PW-9 - Vasantha is the wife of first appellant (first accused), Veeran @ Veerasamy. As PW-1 and PW-9, the wife of the first appellant were in talking terms, the first appellant (first accused) took it in the wrong sense due to suspicion and on an earlier occasion at the instigation of the first appellant/first accused, his brother, namely the second appellant (second accused) had warned PW-1 and advised him not to have any talk with PW-9.
ii) On 212. 2008, PW-1 returned to Pallakrishnapuram, after paying a visit to his native place and at about 3.00 p.m he proceeded towards Marudhai river to take bath. On his way to Marudhai river, he came across PW-9 -Vasantha, who was irrigating their land and PW-9 - Vasantha asked him when he returned from his native place, for which PW-1s reply was "today". On seeing PW-1 and PW-9 talking to each other, the first appellant (first accused) who was in the other side of his field, approached PW-1 with an Aruval and cut him with the said Aruval on the right leg above the ankle, right and left forehands, asking him how dared he talked with PW-9? At the same time, the second appellant (second accused), using bamboo reaper, attacked him on the parietal region of the head and thus caused a bleeding injury.
iii) After the occurrence, PW-1 was taken to the Government hospital, Ariyalur, where first aid treatment was given by PW-5 -Dr.Prema Sakunthala at 5.45 p.m. At the time of admission in the said hospital, PW-1 informed PW-5 that he was attacked by known persons with Aruval and bamboo stick at about 3.00 p.m near Marudhai river on 212. 1998. An intimation was sent to the police, whereupon PW-11, the then head constable attached to Ariyalur police station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1, marked as Ex.P1. Based on the said statement, he prepared Ex.P5 - First Information Report in the printed format and registered a case on this file of Ariyalur Police Station in Crime No.657/1998 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. He took up the initial investigation of the case, went to the place of occurrence, prepared Ex.P6 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P7 -rough sketch. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 212. 1998 at about 11.00 a.m, he arrested the first appellant (first accused) and sent him for judicial custody on the sameday.
iv) On 212. 1998 PW-10 - Syed Mohammed, the then Inspector of police, Ariyalur circle, took up the further investigation of the case and altered the case into one for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P4 is the alteration report sent to the Judicial Magistrate concerned for the said alteration of the case. As PW-10 was transferred from the said place on 212. 1998, thereafter PW-12 - Balaguru,
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
