Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN, J
Manibharathi – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Station House Officer – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Puducherry in Crl. A. No. 44 of 2022, by confirming the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.C. No. 63 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -II, Puducherry.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.
3. The respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.19 of 2017 on 13.03.2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent-Police, after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 63 of 2017.
4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. However the trial Court not found the petitioner guil
The conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld based on reliable witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence, affirming that defects in investigation do not negate the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness statements undermine conviction.
The evidentiary value of an injured witness is significant, and their testimony should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; assumptions cannot replace evidence in criminal convictions.
The prosecution must provide medical and radiological evidence to establish grievous injuries for conviction under Section 326 IPC, emphasizing due process and the right to a speedy trial.
Revisional jurisdiction must not re-evaluate factual evidence but correct manifest legal errors, ensuring justice is served without infringing on trial court determinations.
The need for conclusive proof of grievous injuries to establish the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
The conviction was quashed due to procedural irregularities, evidentiary failures, and bias in police investigations, highlighting the need for stringent adherence to legal standards.
Misreading of evidence by trial and appellate Courts constitutes a manifest illegality, justifying the High Court's intervention in revisional jurisdiction.
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
