BAIL SLIP

CRL.A.NO. 707 OF 2011

The Appellant herein/Accused namely Thameem Ansari was

directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated

06/01/2012 made in Crl.Mp.No. 1/2011 in Crl.A.No. 707/2011.

BAIL SLIP

CRL.A.NO. 195 OF 2012

The Accused/appellant namely Thasthageer was directed to be

released n bail as per order of this Court dated 26/03/2012 made

in Crl.Mp.No. 1/2012 in Crl.A.No. 195/2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.03.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Criminal Appeal Nos.707 of 2011 and 195 of 2012

Thameem Ansari

..

Appellant in Crl.A.No.707/2011

Thasthageer

..

Appellant in Crl.A.No.195/2012

Vs

State by

Inspector of Police,

D-2, Anna Salai Police Station,

Chennai.

(Crime No.1022/2010)

..

Respondent in both Crl.As

Common Prayer:-

These Criminal Appeals are filed under

Section 374 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the

conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants on

17.05.2011 in S.C.No.476 of 2010, on the file of the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court – 4)

Chennai.

For Appellants :

Mr.P.Pugalenthi

For Respondent :

Mrs.Kritika Kamal.P,

Government Advocate (crl.side)

COMMON JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial Court for the offence under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34

I.P.C., the appellant who is A.1 has filed Crl.A.No.707 of 2011.

2.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the

trial Court for the offence under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34

I.P.C., the appellant who is A.2 has filed Crl.A.No.195 of 2012.

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

appellants/A.1 and A.2 and arrested them. Based on the

confession statement, the blade used for the offence was

recovered from A.1, in the presence of two independent witnesses

under mahazar - Ex.P.3.

4.The Doctor, who treated the injured Murugesh, opined that

the injury sustained by him is simple in nature. On receiving

the opinion of the Doctor and on completion of the

investigation, final report was filed against the appellants.

5.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of

sessions since, the offence was exclusively triable by the Court

of Sessions. Charges for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b),

307 r/w 34 I.P.C., were framed against the appellants.

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined eight

witnesses and marked 9 exhibits and one material object. After

appreciating the evidence, the trial Court held A.1 and A.2

guilty of offences under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., and

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for

the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and sentenced them to

undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for offence under

Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. The accused were in prison during the

period of trial. Hence, the trial Court did not impose any fine.

7.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants

are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.

8.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the

time of occurrence as per the accident register is 25.07.2010 at

19.00 hours. Whereas, in the First Information Report given by

the injured victim – P.W.1, the time of occurrence was shown as

22.10 hours. The accident register indicates that the victim

informed the Doctor that four known persons assaulted him using

knife. Whereas, in the F.I.R., it is two persons who attacked

P.W.1 with blade (M.O.1). After registration of F.I.R., the

respondent Police has arrested the accused persons and recovered

Blade (M.O.1). The recovery mahazar - Ex.P.3 does not disclose

from whom the said blade (M.O.1) was recovered. The witness to

the recovery mahazar - Sathish Kumar was examined as P.W.5 was

also not able to identify or recollect from whom, the blade

M.O.1 was recovered.

9.In the said circumstances, the trial Court ought not to

have convicted the