No. of Accused
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Anbalagan & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Cuddalore, Another - Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 266 & 395 of 2016
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 324, 448, 147, 323, 506(2) of IPC - The judgment discusses the charges framed against the accused, the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the findings of the trial and appellate courts. It highlights the circumstances of the incident, the intention of the accused, and the proportionality of the sentence imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were found guilty of offences under Sections 324, 448, 147, and 323 of IPC for attacking the victim at his furniture shop during a dispute over matrimonial issues. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, which was confirmed by the lower appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, to determine the guilt of the accused. It found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed the victim's shop, leading to the attack. The court also considered the proportionality of the sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the intention of the accused, the credibility of witnesses, and the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the gravity of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed, leading to the attack on the victim. It also emphasized the need for proportionate sentencing based on the circumstances of the offence.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of the accused but modified the sentence to ensure proportionality. The Criminal Revision Cases were partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records from the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in connection with judgment made in C.A.No.44 of 2015 dated 29.01.2016 thereby confirming the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram made in C.C.No.191 of 2010, dated 12.06.2015 and set aside the same.
Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed in C.A.No.45 of 2015, dated 29.10.2015 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram in C.C.No.191 of 2010.)
Common Order:
1. These Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the accused persons, who were found guilty and sentenced by the trial Court and the same confirmed by the lower appellate Court.
2. Particulars of the conviction and sentence for the respective offences is listed as below:-
| No. of Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 | For the offences under Sections 324, 448 of IPC | To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months |
| A2 | For the offences under Sections 147, 323, 448 of IPC | To undergo Three months Rigorous Imprisonment |
| A3 | For the offences under Sections 324, 448 of IPC | To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months |
| A4 | For the offences under Sections 147, 323 of IPC | To undergo Three months Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| A5 | For the offence under Section 147 of IPC | (i)To undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment |
The period of sentence ordered to run consequetively.
3. Aggrieved by the concurent finding, Crl.R.C.No.266 of 2016 is filed by the accused 1 to 4 and Crl.R.C.No.395 of 2016 is filed by the 5th accused.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2010 at about 18.00 hours, the Head Constable Ramadass, Chidambaram Nagar Police Station received intimation from Chidambaram Government Hospital about a Medico-legal case and on receipt of the intimation, he went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Natarajan (PW-1). Based on the complaint, he registered FIR in Crime No. 932 of 2010.
5. As per the complaint, the defacto complainant Natarajan running a furniture shop by name and style “King Furnitures”. 17 years ago his sister Punitha married Kannan, the 3rd accused. Due to family dispute, Punitha and Kannan are separated and living separately for five years. On the date of the incident at about 11.15 a.m., Kannan(A-3) along with his three brothers (A1, A2 and A4) and one Senthilnathan (A5) came to his shop and said that they have come to settle the dispute between Kannan and Punitha amicably. While they were engaged in dialogue studdenly they attacked Natarajan. Anbazhagan (A1) took an iron rod and hit on the left side of the head, Veeramani (A2) took a wooden log and hit on the rear side of the head, Kannan(A3) took an iron rod and hit on the left portion of forearm, Kumar (A4)attacked Natarajan with his hand on the chest and Senthilnathan (A5) attaked him on the chest and shoulder.
6. Hearing the noise, Gopal (PW-5), S/o Kaliyaperumal and Velu (PW-2), S/o Muthaiyan came and protected Natarajan from being attacked further. At the time, Kannan threatened Natarajan that if he refused to allow Punitha rejoin him, he will kill. Thereafter, the assailants left the furniture shop leaving the weapon. Natarajan was taken to the hospital in an Auto and admitted as inpatient.
7. This complaint recorded from the victim at the hospital was taken up for investigation and final report filed against A1 to A5.
8. Based on the evidence collected and relied by the prosecution, the trial Court framed the follo
The main legal point established is the need for proportionate sentencing based on the circumstances of the offence, as well as the consideration of evidence to determine the guilt of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, medical evidence, and circumstantial witnesses to support the conviction for assault offences, and the court's exercise of revisi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence provided by prosecution witnesses, the nature and gravity of the offences committed, and the petitioners' age and cri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence, consideration of the circumstances, and the imposition of appropriate sentences and fines.
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