Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
N. Karthick – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, B-9 Saravanampatti Police Station, Coimbatore – Respondents
CRL.R.C. No. 1325 of 2012
Decided on : 12-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:B. Kumarasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kritika Kamal, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible witness testimony, expert medical opinion, and the principles of revisional jurisdiction in affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Assault - Sections 506(i), 341, and 307 IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to the charges under Sections 506(i), 341, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment also referred to the principles of revisional jurisdiction and the interpretation of evidence by the trial and appellate courts.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an assault on Mani (P.W.1) by the accused, resulting in serious injuries. The trial court acquitted the accused of some charges but convicted him under Section 307 IPC. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence, leading to the criminal revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the victim and medical examination, supported the conviction under Section 307 IPC. The court also considered the contradictory statements of a witness but ultimately upheld the findings of the lower courts.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witness testimony, the interpretation of medical evidence, and the application of the relevant sections of the IPC in the context of the assault case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency and credibility of the victim's testimony, the expert opinion on the nature of injuries, and the principles of revisional jurisdiction in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was partly allowed, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner from five years to three years, while upholding the sentence of fine and the default sentence.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Revision preferred under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.270 of 2011 confirming the judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.33 of 2008.)
1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.270 of 2011 confirming the judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.33 of 2008.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. Mani (P.W.1) and his wife were migrant labourers from the neighbouring state of Andhra and had come to Coimbatore in search of employment. Mani (P.W.1) and Karthik (accused) are masons. Mani’s (P.W.1) wife was also a construction labourer. Once Mani (P.W.1) saw the accused and his wife talking to each other very intimately and so, he upbraided his wife and assaulted the accused. After this incident, Mani (P.W.1) believed that the accused had forgotten and forgiven him. However, the accused was nursing a grievance and was wanting to settle his scores with Mani (P.W.1).
2.2. It is alleged that on 16.06.2007, the accused told Mani (P.W.1) that someone has to give him Rs.5,000/-, to collect which, he called Mani (P.W.1) to accompany him. Unsuspectingly, Mani (P.W.1) accompanied him. En route, the accused purchased liquor and together, they went to a desolate location and consumed liquor, after dusk. After treating Mani (P.W.1) with liquor, the accused is said to have indiscriminately attacked him with a chisel (M.O.5), resulting in serious injuries to Mani (P.W.1). When Mani (P.W.1) made a hue and cry, two persons going by a motorcycle, came to his rescue. On seeing them, the accused fled.
2.3. Police was informed and Mani (P.W.1) was taken to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where he was examined by Dr.Marikannan (P.W.13) on 17.06.2007 at 00:45 hrs (12.45 a.m.) and found the following injuries:
i. 10 x 3 x 3 cms cut injury on the right side stomach
ii. 5 x 3 x 3 cms cut injury on the right hip
iii. several cut injuries in the chest and stomach area
iv. 10 x 3 x 1 cms cut injury on the left forearm
v. 5 x 2 x 1 cms cut injury on the back
vi. 5 x 3 x 2 cms cut injury on the right side back
vii. 4 x 3 x 2 cms cut injury on the left side back
viii. 4 x 3 x 2 cms cut injury on the front side of the right thigh
ix. 10 x 4 x 2 cms cut injury on the front side of the left thigh
2.4. On the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by Mani (P.W.1), the police registered a case in Crime No.554 of 2007 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in P.R.C.No.8 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore under Sections 506(i), 341 and 307 IPC.
2.5. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.33 of 2008 and was made over to the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Court, for trial. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 506(i), 341 and 307 IPC against the accused. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.
2.6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, marked Exs.P1 to P15 and M.O.s 1 to 9.
2.7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused nor any document marked.
2.8. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 in S.C.No.33 of 2008, acquitted the accused of the offence under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC, but convicted him of the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous i
