Advocates:
['M/S L MAHENDRAN', '', 'LEGAL AID COUNSEL', 'M/S A VEERAMARTHINI', '', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

BAIL SLIP

The Petitioners/Accused viz., 1.M.Sivakumar S/o.Sivalingam,

2. Harikesavan, S/o.Arumugam, were released on bail as per the

Order of this Court dated 03.03.2017 in Crl.MP.No.3472/2017 in

Crl.RC.No.372 of 2017 on the file of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 08.06.2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 16 .06.2022

CORAM::

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.372 OF 2017

1. Sivakumar,

S/o.Sivalingam,

No.132, New Street,

Thuthipet Colony,

Vellore Taluk & District.

2. Harikesavan,

S/o.Arumugam,

No.4/9, Beemarao Street,

Moonjurpet, Vellore Taluk & District.

... Petitioners/Appellants

/versus/

State by Inspector of Police,

Bagayam Police Station,

Vellore District,

Crime No.323 of 2011

... Respondent

Prayer:

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 & 401 of

Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court made in

S.C.No.132 of 2012 dated 23.04.2015 on the file of the Learned

Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore,

Vellore District as confirmed by the judgment of the learned

Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore made in C.A.No.29 of

2015 dated 23.02.2017 and acquit them from the charges.

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

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mahendran &

Ms.A.Veeramarthini, Legal Aid counsel

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed by the accused 1 & 2

being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below

holding them guilty for offences under Section 341 and 326 of

I.P.C. The trial Court convicted the accused 1 & 2 for offence

under Section 341 of I.P.C and sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/-

in default one week S.I also convicted them for offence under

Section 326 and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine

of Rs.1000/- in default one month S.I.

2. The gist of the prosecution case as unfold during

the course of investigation is that the defacto complainant

T.C.Rajmohan and the accused Harikesavan who is the 2^nd revision

petitioner herein were partners in finance business. There was

some dispute in managing the business. Therefore, due to the

said enmity, on 30.05.2011 at about 8.45 p.m., when the defacto

complainant T.C.Rajmohan was returning to his home in the self

driven car, he was voluntarily restrained by four persons near

lake bund of Thuthipet Village, near his residence. When the

defacto complainant get down from the car, the 2^nd accused caught

hold of his shirt and slapped on his cheek. The 2^nd accused took

a stone and thrown on the left leg causing fractured injury.

While throwing the stone, he also utter 'you get lost'. Charges

were framed against them under Sections 341 and 307 of I.P.C.

3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 16

witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and produced 1 material object.

4. The delay in filing F.I.R, while the complaint is

against 4 persons only two were prosecuted, contradictions

between P.W.1 to P.W.4 were pointed by the defence for

acquittal. However, the Trial Court, on appreciating the

evidence held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond

doubt in respect of charge under Section 341 of I.P.C. Insofar

as charge under Section 307 of I.P.C., it held that there is no

intention of causing death and likelihood of causing death,

therefore, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C, is not made out.

Only offence under Section 326 of I.P.C, is made out.

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

5. The Trial Court, on considering the fact that, soon

after the incident the victim was taken to the hospital he

become unconscious. Therefore, Manokaran (P.W.14), Sub-

Inspector, who went to the C.M.C hospital on receiving the

intimation, could not record the statement of the victim, F.I.R

was therefore not registered. Only on 03.06.2011, when the

injured victim r