BAIL SLIP

The Petitioner/ Accused namely Duraisamy Male aged 45 years

S/o. Jadaiyan was directed to be released on bail in and by the

order of this Court dated 20.01.2015 and made in MP. No.1/2014

in Crl.R.C.No.1359/2014 on file of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Criminal Revision Case No.1359 of 2014

Duraisamy

..Revision Petitioner

Versus

State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Mathikon Palayam Police Station,

Dharmapuri District.

Crime No.524 of 2009

..Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401

of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the

judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri,

Dharmapuri District made in C.A.No.37 of 2013 dated 10.09.2014

confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri made in

C.C.No.68 of 2010 by judgment dated 01.10.2013 convicting the

petitioner herein under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to

undergo two years RI and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as fine in

default to undergo one week SI.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ravi

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision

Case challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District made in C.A.No.37 of 2013

dated 10.09.2014 confirming the conviction and sentence passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri

made in C.C.No.68 of 2010 by judgment dated 01.10.2013.

2.The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful accused

before the Lower Court, who was convicted for the offences under

Section 326 IPC with two year rigorous imprisonment and fine of

Rs.3,000/- passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the

1^st appellate Court, against which this Revision is preferred

stating that there was a previous enmity between him and the

de-facto complainant's family, with regard to land dispute and

there was a case in counter in Crime No.525 of 2009, which was

registered and the FIR was lodged in the case in hand in Crime

No.524 of 2009. On suppressing the fact that the accused also

sustained injuries due to the attack made by the defacto-

complainant along with others, and thereby, the prosecution has

not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Both the Courts

below, without appreciating the fact had erroneously convicted

the accused under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo

two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-

as fine, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

Hence he prayed to set aside the conviction passed by the trial

Court which was confirmed by the 1^st appellate Court in C.A.No.37

of 2013, before the learned

Principal Sessions Judge,

Dharmapuri.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted

that there was a previous enmity between the petitioner family

and the de-facto complainant's family. On the day of the alleged

occurrence, the de-facto complainant along with others,

assaulted the accused and thereby, he sustained injuries and

based upon his complaint, counter FIR was lodged against him in

Crime No.525 of 2009.

4.But the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing

for the respondent submitted that the accused had bitten the ear

of P.W.1 at the time of alleged occurrence and the same was

proved with the help of Doctor's evidence, and so, the trial

Court rightly charged him under Section 326 IPC, which was also

confirmed by the appellate Court thereby contended that there is

no merit in the revision and prayed for dismissal.

5.On a perusal of the records, it reveals that before the

trial Court along with this accused, another three persons were

charged under Section 294(b) and 326 IPC f