BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Ayyavu – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District – Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 281 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos. 4929 & 4068 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
294(b) IPC - Criminal Assault - 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the first accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and against the second accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and against the third and fourth accused for the offence under Section 323 (2 counts) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused restrained the complainant and his wife from constructing a septic tank, and physically attacked them, leading to injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be cogent, reliable, and trustworthy, and confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused for the respective offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the injuries, corroborative evidence, and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the direct evidence provided by the witnesses and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act based on the report of the Probation Officer.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction against the first accused but ordered release under the Probation of Offenders Act, with supervision and reporting requirements.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 28.04.2018 passed in C.C.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District, wherein the petitioner/A1 was found guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 324 IPC sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is hereby set aside and acquitted thereof and the sentence was confirmed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC vide judgment dated 23.09.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.109 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District and acquit the petitioner/accused herein.)
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent judgment of conviction passed in Crl.A.No.109 of 2018, dated 23.09.2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.86 of 2014, dated 28.04.2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The revision petitioner is the first accused/first appellant in C.C.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2011 at about 10.00 am, when the defacto complainant was attempting to construct a septic tank in front of his house situated in Melavaduhappatti, Musiri, the accused had restrained the complainant and his wife Chellammal from constructing septic tank and abused them in filthy language; that the first accused had attacked the defacto complainant with Aruval on his head; that the second accused had attacked the witness Chellammal with wooden log on her head; that the accused 3 and 4 had attacked the defacto complainant and the witness Chellammal with hands and sticks and caused simple injuries and that the accused by showing the weapons had threatened that they would kill them.
4. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant Adaikkalam, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.205 of 2011 and after completion of investigation, final report came to be filed against four persons including the revision petitioner herein for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.
5. During the trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited six documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The defence has adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the judgment on 28.04.2018, convicting the first accused for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 15 days imprisonment and undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC; (ii) convicting the second accused for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment; and sentenced him to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC; (iii) convicting the third and fourth accused for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (2 counts) in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323(2 co
The main legal point established is the reliance on direct evidence and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act in determining the sentence.
The injured's evidence and medical evidence play a crucial role in establishing the charges of assault under the IPC.
Non-recovery of the weapon used in an offense is not fatal to the prosecution's case when reliable ocular eyewitness testimony is corroborated by medical evidence of the injuries sustained.
The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
A conviction requires robust evidence; flaws in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence lead to benefit of doubt.
Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld based on evidence, while the charge under Section 307 IPC was invalidated due to lack of intent, leading to a reduced sentence based on the time elapsed since ....
The court modified the sentencing for the accused while affirming the findings of guilt due to the absence of premeditation and the accused's age.
The importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
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.