BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/Accused namely Anand, S/o.Balu aged about 29

years was released on bail by This Hon'ble court in

Crl.M.P.No.10933 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.491 of 2018 order dated

21.08.2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2022

CORAM::

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.A.No.491 of 2018

& Crl.M.P.No.9726 of 2019

Anand, M/A-29 years,

S/o.Balu,

No.127, Muthaiah Garden Street,

Chellammal Thottam,

Chennai – 600 014.

...Appellant/Accused

/versus/

State by,

The Inspector of Police,

D-3, Ice House P.S.,

Chennai – 600 005.

(Crime No.1772/2015)

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of

Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and

sentence imposed against the appellant by the Learned XVII

Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai on 30.07.2018 in S.C.No.35

of 2017 and acquit the appellant.

For Appellant : Mr.T.S.N.Prabhakaran

For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

J U D G M E N T

Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.05.2015, at

about 3.30 p.m., the appellant herein who is the resident

opposite to the shop of the P.W.1 (Tr.Ismail) was sitting in the

motor cycle owned by P.W.1's son. P.W.1 asked the accused to

get down from the two wheeler. The accused got down but after

two hours came to the shop of P.W.1 picked quarrel and poured

the hot boiling milk on him. P.W.1 sustained 18% burn injury

over his chest and abdomen. He got admitted in the hospital.

Pursuant to his complaint, case was registered against the

petitioner/appellant herein for offences under Sections 307 &

324 of I.P.C.

3.The trial Court, on analysing the evidence of P.W.1 and

other prosecution witnesses, had convicted the accused for

offence under Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one

year S.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, 3 months S.I.

4.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present

appeal is filed.

5.The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that

though charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 307 &

324 of I.P.C., the trial Court framed charge only for offence

under Section 307 of I.P.C since there was no intention to cause

death or likelihood of causing death.

6.The Trial Court found no ground to convict the accused for

offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. However, altered the charges

to Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced him, which is not based on

any reliable evidence. While both the eye witnesses turned

hostile, solely based on evidence of P.W.1 and the injury

mentioned in wound certificate marked as Ex.P.6, the accused was

convicted. The trial Court failed to note that the accused also

sustained burn injury on his thigh, and was admitted in the jail

hospital by Investigating Officer has in the cross examination

admits, he came to know the accused was treated in jail hospital

for the burn injury. Therefore, when the accused has also

sustained injury in the same transaction no proper investigation

conducted in the regard to his injury. Due to the lopsided

investigation, case has been registered against the accused

without ascertaining the real aggressor, hence the judgment of

the trial Court to be set aside.

7.The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for

the respondent submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 (Ismail) and

P.W.9 (Dr.Senthil) read along with Ex.P.6 wound certificate

clearly prove the guilt of the accused for causing burn injury

mentioned in wound certificate Ex.P.6 and Accident Register

Ex.P.7. The injury sustained by the victim P.W.1 is 18% burn

over his chest and abdomen. The burn injury alleged to have been

sustained by the accused on his thigh is not borne by record.

Except an admission by the Investigating Off