Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep., by Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL.A (MD).No. 100 of 2008
Decided On : 09-03-2018
IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 307, Section 326 - The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the injuries sustained by the victim, the recovery of the weapon, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the lack of X-Ray and bloodstain evidence. The court concluded that the charge under Section 326 IPC had not been proved, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC for attacking the victim with an Aruval. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 326 IPC due to lack of evidence including X-Ray and bloodstain, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the recovery of the weapon.
Issues: Contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of crucial evidence such as X-Ray and bloodstain, and the recovery of the weapon were key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, leading to the conclusion that the charge under Section 326 IPC had not been proved.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted from the offence under Section 326 IPC.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.02.2008, made in S.C.No.142 of 2007, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai.
2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.142 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. The appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge convicted him for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, and in default to pay the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, Thiru.Kalimuthu, [P.W.1] and the accused are residents of the Kamarajar Nagar, Avudaiyarkoil. There was an enmity between P.W.1 and the accused with regard to putting up of a hut in the place belonging to P.W.1 and on 19.04.2007, at about 08:45 p.m., when P.W.1 was going back home after his work, the accused hit him by means of an Aruval on his head. When P.W.1 prevented the accused, he got injured on his left palm.
4. According to the prosecution, P.W.1's wife Anjalai [P.W.2] and his son Muthukumar [P.W.3] had witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 was taken to Avudaiyarkoil police station by P.W.2 and P.W.3, where P.W.1 lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1] with the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thiru.Albert Sekar [P.W.9], the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Avudaiyarkoil Police Station, received the complaint from P.W.1 on 19.04.2007 and registered the First Information Report [Ex.P.9] in Crime No.35 of 2007, for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent to Government Hospital at Aranthangi.
5. Doctor Tamilpavai [P.W.8] examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries on P.W.1:
“(1) Cut injury involving the left lateral aspect of the hand exposing the left hand tendons.
(2) An injured would about 5 cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm in the left side of the head.”
6. Thereafter, P.W.8 referred P.W.1 to the Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur and after receiving a report from the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, gave an opinion that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are grievous in nature. Thiru.Rajendran, the then Inspector of Police, [P.W.10], took up investigation in Crime No.35 of 2007, visited the scene of occurrence on 20.04.2007 and prepared a rough sketch [Ex.P.10] and an observation Mahazar [Ex.P.11], in the presence of one Muruganantham [P.W.5] and one Ravi. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and his confession statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses Paramasivam [P.W.6] and Marimuthu [P.W.7]. Based on the confession statement given by the accused, an Aruval measuring 8 inches was recovered under the cover of a mahazar [Ex.P.11] in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.7. After completing investigation, P.W.10 laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
7. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC.
8. The specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused is that:
(i) There are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.
(ii) The Doctor who has given treatment to the victim has not been examined and P.W.8 has given her opinion based on the report given by the doctor who has given treatment to the victim.
(iii) The prosecution has not produced the X-Ray and the report in the instant case and there was no bloodstain in the Aruval, [M.O.1], which has been allegedly recovered based on the alleged confession given by the accused.
(iv) The Mahazar witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the recovery of the weapon
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
