Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4368
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
Pattu @ John Pet - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)Nos.79, 84 and 108 of 2020
Decided on : 29-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed
For the Respondent:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate
The court emphasized the necessity of a proper investigation to identify aggressors in cases involving mutual assaults, ruling that flawed procedures led to wrongful convictions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Conviction and sentence challenged in appeals - Prosecution alleged assault and property damage during a dispute - Trial court convicted accused based on witness testimonies - Court found investigation flawed, failing to identify aggressors - No clear evidence established charges against accused. (Paras 1-57)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - The trial court's failure to consider counter complaints and proper investigation procedures led to flawed convictions. (Paras 30-34)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that on 03/06/2016, the complainant was assaulted and his vehicle damaged by the accused during a dispute over property. The accused denied the charges, claiming a false case was made against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that both parties suffered injuries and damage to property, but the prosecution failed to establish who the aggressors were.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of witness testimonies and the adequacy of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court erred in convicting the accused without properly addressing the counter complaints and the flawed investigation.
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Crl.A(MD)Nos.79 and 84 of 2020 have been filed against the judgment conviction and sentence passed in SC No.19 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 03/02/2020, whereas Crl.A(MD)No.108 of 2020 is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.284 of 2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
2. Crl.A(MD)Nos.79 and 80 of 2020:-
The case of the prosecution is that on 03/06/2016 at about 07.30 am, the de-facto complainant was said to have been attacked by using hammer, inflicted bite injuries on his right hand by the accused and abused him in filthy language coupled with damage to his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-72-BB-3493 by hitting upon it using the Mahindra Van. Upon the occurrence, a case in Crime No.120 of 2016 was registered for the offence under section 294(b), 323, 324 IPC and section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file in SC No.284 of 2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused:-
(i) On 03/06/2016, PW1 and the accused entered into conspiracy over taking of grand daughter of the complainant to the school; The above school belongs to the PW1's son-in-law; During the course of the occurrence, there was exchange of words between them; at that time, A2 abused the de- facto complainant in filthy language and thereby, A2 committed an offence punishable under section 294(b) IPC ;
(ii) In continuation of the above said occurrence, the deceased accused Antony caused assault with hands on the cheek of the de-facto complainant, thereby caused simple injury; at that time, A2 caught hold of the de-facto complainant's hand and assaulted him, thereby caused simple injury, so A2 committed an offence punishable under section 323 IPC ;
(iii) In continuation of the above said occurrence the de-facto complainant was said to have been attacked by A1 by using hammer and inflicted bite injuries on his right hand and thereby, A1 committed an offence under section 324 IPC ; and
(iv) In furtherance of the above said occurrence, the deceased accused Antony caused damage to the two wheeler TN-72-BB-3493 by using hammer in collusion with A1, thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs.4,000/-. So A1 committed an offence punishable under section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w 108 IPC .
3. To that charges, all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and 13 documents marked. Apart from that, 2 material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but three documents were marked.
5. PW1 is the complainant. He has stated that on 03/06/2016, he and accused entered into conspiracy over taking of his grand-daughter to the school. The above said school belongs to the PW1's son-in-law. During the course of the occurrence, there was exchange of blows between them. At that time, the accused Selvaraj and Pattu @ John came to that place. They assaulted him. Selvaraj caused damage to his two wheeler. Pattu @ John bite his hands. Antony Ponraj caused assault with hammer. Neighbours intervened, he was taken to the hospital. When he was admitted in the hospital, he became unconscious. So, his wife gave statement under Ex.P1.
6. PW8 went to the Government Hospital, Srivaikumdam, on receiving the intimation and recorded the statement of PW1, registered the case in Crime No.120 of 2018 under sections 294(B), 323, 324 IPC and section 3 of TNPPDL Act. He submitted the original records to the concerned court and the copies to the higher authorities.
7. Investigation was taken by PW9 who was working as Inspector of Police, Manaur Police Station. He visited the place of occurrence at about 03.00 pm in the presence of the wi
