IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.08.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.R.C. No.690 of 2019

R.Muruganantham,

S/o. Ramadurai

...

Petitioner/Defacto Complainant

-Vs-

1. Manoharan,

S/o. Rangasamy

... 1^st Respondent/Accused

2. State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Kudavasal Police Station,

Thiruvarur Dt.

(Crime No.116 of 2016)

... 2^nd Respondent/Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401

of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the fine of

Rs.750/- for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. imposed in the

jugdment dated 27.02.2019 made in C.A.No.36 of 2018 on the file

of the learned District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur,

modifying the sentence imposed in the judgment dated 09.05.2018

made in C.C.No.134 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate

Court,

Thiruvarur

and

punish

the

1^st

respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 326

I.P.C. by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Manoharan

For Respondents:

Mr.Govarthanan,

for M/s. B.Ramamoorthy for R1

Mr.S.Sugendran,

Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2

O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The 2^nd respondent police registered a case against the 1^st

respondent herein in Crime No.134 of 2016 for the offence under

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

Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(2) I.P.C. After

investigation, the 2^nd respondent police had laid a charge sheet

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur only for the

offence under Section 294(b) and 326 I.P.C.

2. After completing the formalities, the case was taken on

file in C.C.No.134 of 2016 on the file of learned Judicial

Magistrate, Thiruvarur and the learned Judicial Magistrate had

framed charges for the offence under Section 294(b) and 326

I.P.C., and after trial, found guilty of offence against 1^st

respondent/accused for offence under Sec.324 I.P.C. and

convicted and sentenced to undergo one week simple imprisonment

and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default, to undergo 7 days

simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction

and sentence, the de facto complainant filed an appeal before

the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. The learned

Principal Sessions Judge had taken the appeal on file in Crl.A.

No. 36 of 2018 and after hearing arguments, the appellate court

confirmed the guilt of 1^st respondent/accused and conviction, but

only modified the period of sentence to the period, which he has

undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs.100/- to Rs.750/-, in

default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment. Challenging

the said judgment of appellate court, the de facto complainant

has filed the present Criminal Revision Case to set aside both

the judgments of Trial Court and the appellate court and punish

the 1^st respondent/accused for the offence under Sec.294(b) and

326 I.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that

though the prosecution has proved this case beyond reasonable

doubt, the injured witness has clearly deposed about the

incident and medical evidence also corroborated the same. The

Trial Court though not found the guilt of the 1^st

respondent/accused for offence under Sec.326, however convicted

him under Sec.324 of I.PC. and the sentence is not proportionate

to the offence committed. However, the trial court has

erroneously altered the charge from Sec.326 I.P.C. to Sec.324

I.P.C. The appellate court also failed to re-

appreciate the evidence and partly allowed the appeal and the

period, which the 1^st respondent had undergone imprisonment was

treated as sentence of imprisonment and only increased the fine

amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.750/-, which is also not

proportionate to the offence committed by the 1^st

respondent/accused. Therefore, aggrieved over