Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
D. Nagamuthu & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Erode - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 421 of 2017
Decided On : 21-06-2022
For the Petitioners:B. Singaravelu, Advocate. For the Respondent:N.S. Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The importance of timely FIR filing and the need for corroboration to the evidence of the victim witness.
Headnote:
FIR Delay - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) of I.P.C - The court upheld the finding of no delay in registering FIR and the corroboration to the evidence of the injured witness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. They filed a revision petition on the grounds of delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroboration to the evidence of the victim witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay in registering the FIR and that there was sufficient corroboration to the evidence of the injured witness.
Issues: Delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroboration to the evidence of the victim witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the finding of no delay in registering the FIR and the corroboration to the evidence of the injured witness.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and the petitioners were directed to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Erode, in C.A.No.193 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016 confirming the Judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in C.C.No.8 of 2014 dated 22.10.2016 acquit the petitioners/accused and allow the above Crl.R.C., as the charges against them are disproved.)
1. The petitioners were arrayed as accused 2 & 3 in C.C.No.8 of 2014 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode and tried along with other accused for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) of I.P.C.
2. The Trial Court held these two petitioners guilty of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I.
3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, they preferred appeal in C.A. No. 193 of 2016 and same was dismissed.
4. Against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider the inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R and lack of corroboration to the evidence of victim witness (P.W.1).
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 28.11.2013, the defacto complainant Jagadeesan went to the house of the 6th accused Leelavathi with whom he had money transaction in connection with fridge sold by him to her. Under the pretext of settling the dues, the defacto complainant was called to the house of the 6th accused and he went to collect money quarrel erupted and he was attacked severally by seven persons. As far as the petitioners/accused 2 & 3 are concerned, specific overt act attributed against them for causing grievous hurt using deadly weapon.
6. For the alleged incident which took place on 28.11.2013 at about 5.00 p.m.. The F.I.R was registered on 29.11.2013 in crime No.826 of 2013 for offence under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of I.P.C. Later, in the course of investigation, charges were altered for offences under Section 147, 148 294(b), 323, 326, 506 (ii) of I.P.C.
7. Before the trial Court, the prosecution to prove the charge examined the defacto complainant Jagadeesan as P.W.1, the eye witness Nirmala (P.W.2), Muthamizhselvan (P.W.3) and Muralidharan (P.W.4).
8. Regarding the injury and admission of the victim witness (P.W.1) in the hospital, the prosecution has examined Dr.Vijaya Kumar (P.W.6), who treated him at Nalli Hospital and gave wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.4. Dr.Anantha Kumar (P.W.7), causality doctor attached to Erode Headquarters Hospital, saw the injured and provided first aid, and he gave the Accident Register (Ex.P.5). P.W.8 & P.W.9 are the Police Officials who registered the F.I.R and investigated the case.
9. Based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9, the documents relied by the prosecution which were Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and M.O.1 the iron rod. The Trial Court found that the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C against the petitioner who were arrayed as Accused A2 and A3 is made out. For the said offence under Section 324 of I.P.C, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. In respect of other charges, they were acquitted. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, the trial Court found the accused 6 & 7 guilty of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of 3 months S.I. While A6 & A7 paid the fine amount and suffered the sentence. A2 & A3 convicted for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C preferred appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No.193 of 2016 and same was dismissed on 22.12.2016. Against the concurrent finding, this criminal revision is filed.
10. The first point canvassed before this Court by way of revision as mentioned above is that, the delay in filing the F.I.R was not properly explained.
11. From the evidence, this Court finds that as per the complaint (Ex.P.1), the incident occurred on 28.11.2013 at 5.00 p.m., in
