Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
R. Chinnadurai and Ors. - Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 1242 & 1243 of 2015
Decided On : 18-05-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Rajavannian, Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Sekar.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 294(b), 148 , 324 , 323 and 506(ii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 360 and 357(3) - De-facto complainant – Offence of rioting , armed with deadly weapons – Criminal intimidation - Charge sheet - Payment of compensation First Appellate Court, on considering said judgement and conviction made by Trial Court, had come to conclusion that compensation awarded against A1 was justifiable and that sentence passed against A2 i.e., three months simple imprisonment was liable to be set aside and accordingly, that sentence was set aside - However, fine imposed against A2 was confirmed - However, as against the conviction and imposition of fine made by Trial Court since having been confirmed, those accused persons i.e., A1 to A4 preferred these two Criminal Revision Cases before this Court. A1, i.e., appellant in Crl. Appeal No.10 before First Appellate Court, filed Criminal Revision Case No. of and accused A2 to A4, who were appellants in Criminal Appeal No. before First Appellate Court, preferred Criminal Revision Case No.- That is how, these two revision cases were filed before this Court – Held, case and counter as there had been complaint by A13 against P.W.1 and P.W.2 and in this regard on alleged assault made by P.W.1 since A13 sustained injury and he had also taken treatment in very same hospital, these aspects, as has been rightly pointed out by defence side, have not been properly appreciated because of reason that police have closed case as mistake of fact - Further, fact remains that A13 had sustained injury and had taken treatment in hospital on alleged occurrence taken place few minutes prior to present occurrence on said day - Therefore, taking into account these situations, this Court feels that benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of accused persons - In such perspective of the matter, this Court is of considered view that petitioners herein who are A2 to A4 are not liable to be punished as per the sentence made by the Trial Court as confirmed by First Appellate Court and thereby this Revision Case deserves to be allowed - Criminal Revision Case Nos.1242 and 1243 of 2015 are allowed and sentence and imposition of compensation/fine made against revision petitioners are set aside.
In C.C.No.305 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Jayamkondam there were 13 accused. Among the 13, charge sheet was filed against A1 and A5 to A13 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. Against A2 and A4, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences under Sections 148, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC. Against A3, charge sheet was filed under Sections 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC. After trial, the learned Magistrate, by judgement dated 23.10.2013, acquitted A5 to A13 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court admonished A1 for the proven charge under Section 323 of IPC. However, the trial Court even though admonished A1 under Section 360 of Cr.P.C., had directed payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to P.W.2 under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
(ii) As regards A2, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
(iii) In respect of A3, though initially on the date of judgement, i.e., on 23.10.2013, the judgement and conviction in respect of A3 was deferred or postponed in view of the juvenility raised against A3, subsequently, by judgement dated 25.10.2013, the trial Court convicted A3 for an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, one month simple imprisonment was ordered.
(iv) With regard to A4, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, seven days simple imprisonment was ordered.
(v) As against the said conviction and order of compensation, A1 filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015; A2 to A4 filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2013 and the de-facto complainant filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. The First Appellate Court, on considering the said judgement and conviction made by the Trial Court, had come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded against A1 was justifiable and that the sentence passed against A2 i.e., three months simple imprisonment was liable to be set aside and accordingly, that sentence was set aside. However, the fine imposed against A2 was confirmed. The First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and fine imposed against all other accused i.e., A3 and A4. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant. Thereby, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2014 as well as Crl.A.No.10 of 2015. Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2013 was partly allowed. As against the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 filed by A1 as well as the judgement passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2013 filed by A2 to A4, they accepted setting aside three months imprisonment imposed against A2. However, as against the conviction and imposition of fine made by the Trial Court since having been confirmed, those accused persons i.e., A1 to A4 preferred these two Criminal Revision Cases before this Court. A1, i.e., the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.10 of 2015 before the First Appellate Court, filed Criminal Revision Case No.1242 of 2015 and accused A2 to A4, who were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2014 before the First Appellate Court, preferred the Criminal Revision Case No.1243 of 2015. That is how, these two revision cases were filed before this Court.
2. I have heard Mr.N.Rajavannian, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and Mr. R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the prosecution/ respondent.
3. Since the issue raised in these Criminal Revision Cases is common and since they have arisen out of the same occurrence and the same judgement and conviction made in C.C.No.305 of 2012 of the Trial Court, th
