IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Venga Gounder - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Salem - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 967 of 2015
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Offence under Section 325 of I.P.C - Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C - 447, 294(b), 506(ii), 325, 341, 323 of I.P.C - The court discussed the charges framed, findings, and conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The court analyzed the discrepancies in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the person who actually attacked the victim. The judgment set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute leading to an altercation where the petitioner was accused of causing grievous hurt to the victim. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, which was partly upheld by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence regarding the time of occurrence and the person who caused the injury. It also highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish the person who actually attacked the victim, leading to the erroneous conviction of the petitioner.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the discrepancies in the evidence, credibility of witnesses, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the perpetrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of clarity in the evidence, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the failure to establish the identity of the perpetrator, leading to the erroneous conviction of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court were set aside. The fine amount paid was ordered to be refunded, and the bail bond executed by the petitioner was cancelled.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the Learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.88 of 2014 dated 09.07.2015 confirming in respect of the petitioner alone from Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari in C.C.No.94 of 2008 dated 30.06.2014 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted entirely.)
1. The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.94 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari. The petitioner along with three other accused persons were tried in a case registered by the respondent police in Crime No.2 of 2007 dated 05.01.2007.
2. Based on the complaint given by Manthiri S/o.Iyyamperumal alleging that, due to property dispute and pendency of case, on 04.01.2007 at about 3.00 p.m when he was weeding out grass in his field, Kandasamy (A-1) came to his field and scolded him with abusive language for supporting one Thangavel. Chandran (A-3) and Arul Prakasam (A-4) held him and punched on his back. Venga Gounder (A-2), the petitioner herein attacked him with Koduval on his right side shoulder. On hearing his scream, Thangavel and Mariappan rush to the seen. All the four accused left the place threatening him that they will not allow him to live. Manthiri was taken to Edappadi Government Hospital for treatment. On reference for further treatment, he was admitted at Salem Government Hospital. The Sub Inspector Police got intimation from the hospital and has gone to the hospital and recorded the statement on 05.01.2007 and registered a case under Section 294(b), 341, 324 and 506(ii) at 17.30 hrs.
3. On completion of investigation, final report filed alleging that A1 committed offences under Section 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C, A2 committed offence under Section 447, 326 and 506(ii) of I.P.C and A3 & A4 committed offences under Section 447, 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
4. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits.
5. The Trial Court held A1 & A2 guilty of offences under Section 325 I.P.C. A3 guilty of offences under Section 341 and 325 of I.P.C. A4 guilty of offence under Section 341 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo following punishment and acquitted from other charges.
| Charges framed | Findings | Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.94 of 2008 | |
| A1 | Under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C | 325 IPC | U/s 325 IPC S.I for 2 years with Fine Rs.3500/- i/d S.I for 6 months |
| A2 | Under Sections 447, 326, 506(ii) IPC | 325 IPC | U/s 325 IPC S.I for 2 years with Fine Rs.3500/- i/d S.I for 6 months |
| A3 | 447, 341, 323, 506 (ii) IPC | 341, 325 IPC | U/s 341, 325 IPC S.I for 2 years with Fine Rs.3500/- i/d S.I for 6 months u/s 325 IPC and Fine Rs.500/- I/d S.I for 1 month u/s 341 IPC |
| A4 | 447, 341, 323, 506(ii) IPC | 341 IPC | U/s 341 IPC Fine Rs.500/- I/d S.I for 1 month |
6. Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction all the four accused preferred appeal before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and came to be heard in C.A.No.88 of 2014. The Appellate Court, on reappreciating the evidence allowed the appeal partly.
7. The conviction of A1 & A3 for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C was set aside and acquitted. The conviction and sentence imposed on A2 for offence under Section 325 was confirmed. The conviction imposed on A3 & A4 for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C was confirmed.
| Charges framed | Conviction and Sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.94 of 2008 | Conviction and Sentence passed by the Appellate Court in C.A.No.88 of 2014 | |
| A1 | Under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C | U/s 325 IPCS.I for 2 years with Fine Rs.3500/- i/d S.I for 6 months | Conviction under Section 325 of I.P.C is set aside. |
| A2 | Under Sections 447, 326, 506(ii) IPC | U/s 325 IPCS.I for 2 years with Fine Rs.3500/- i/d S.I for 6 months | |
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and lack of glaring inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence to determine ....
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
The reliability of prosecution witnesses' evidence and the consideration of minor contradictions in the evidence as immaterial in accepting the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused and discrepancies in witness statements raised serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case, leading to the setting aside of....
The court held that insufficient evidence of intent to cause death led to the acquittal of the accused from serious charges while affirming some convictions based on the established facts.
: CONVICTION UPHELD – ACCUSE did not come with the weapon, spade with a pre-plan and he picked up the weapon from the person who was working in the field, only after such quarrel. Considering the sai....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.