Muthu @ Kirukku Muthu v. The State Rep by Its,

ORDER The revision challenges the concurrent Judgments convicting the petitioner/appellant/sole accused for the offence under Section 325 of the Page No.1 of 9 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo two months of simple imprisonment.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/appellant/sole accused on 14.01.2017 had visited the shop belonging to P.W.1/victim, and towards the purchase of bangles worth about Rs.160/- (Rupees One Hundred and Sixty only), the petitioner had paid Rs.100/- only, and when P.W.1 demanded the balance Rs.60/-, the petitioner had abused him in filthy language and had twisted his hand and caused dislocation of his elbow.

¶3On the complaint given by the victim, a case was registered against the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of the IPC.

¶4After completing the investigation, P.W.8 filed a final report against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(i) of the IPC. The prosecution had examined 8 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Page No.2 of 9

¶5The trial Court, after considering the evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo two months of simple imprisonment and acquitted the appellant for the offences under Sections 294 (i) and 506(i) of the IPC.

¶6The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 325 of the IPC; that the Doctor/P.W.6, who had certified that there was a dislocation, is not an Orthopedic Doctor; that she was not a Doctor, who had taken the X-ray of the victim; that the conviction of the trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.6 and the accident register/Ex.P3 and wound certificate/Ex.P4 cannot be sustained; and that the evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable and prayed for setting aside the Judgments of conviction. Page No.3 of 9

¶8Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt; and that the trial Court acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 506(i) of the IPC and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC on the evidence of P.W.1/victim and P.W.6/Doctor, besides the evidence of eyewitnesses, namely P.W.2 and P.W.3, and therefore, there is no infirmity warranting interference in the revision.

¶9As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim and the de-facto complainant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eyewitnesses who corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the Observation Mahazar witnesses. P.W.6 is a Doctor, who had treated the victim and made entries in the accident register/Ex.P3 and issued wound certificate/Ex.P4. P.W.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had registered the FIR. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who had prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and filed the Final Report for the offences under Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(i) of the IPC.

¶10The above would show that the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3/eyewitnesses and the evidence of Page No.4 of 9 P.W.6/Doctor to establish the charge under Section 325 of the IPC.

¶11P.W.6/the Doctor, in the accident register and the wound certificate had noted that the victim had suffered a dislocation in the left elbow. In Ex.P.3/accident register, the Doctor had noted that there was a posterio lateral dislocation in the left elbow joint. The injury has been mentioned in Ex.P4/wound certificate also. This is confirmed by X-ray/Ex.P6.

¶12In the light of the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution had established that the victim sustained grievous injuries, namely a dislocation in the elbow, which falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the IPC.

¶13The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that a specialist or a radiologist was not examined. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Doctor is not qualified to speak about the dislocation. To prove the dislocation, it is not necessary that a specialist should be examined. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.6, this Court is of the view that the prosecution had established that a grievous hurt was Page No.5 of 9 caused to the victim.

¶14The next question is whether the petitioner had caused the grievous injury. P.W.1, the victim himself, had clearly deposed that it is the petitioner who had caused injury and has narrated the occurrence in a cogent manner. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Further, his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of eyewitnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3. Therefore, the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court had rightly believed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

¶15However, considering the nature of the evidence, the age of the petitioner and the fact that he had sought a lesser sentence before the trial Court as he had to take care of his two daughters, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, can be reduced from three years of simple imprisonment to one year of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- in default suffer two months of simple imprisonment. The respondent shall secure the petitioner/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining Page No.6 of 9 period of sentence,

¶16With the above modification, the Criminal Revision stands partly allowed.

09.12.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dk Page No.7 of 9 To

¶1The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.

¶2The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam

¶3The Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station, Peralam, Thiruvarur District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.8 of 9

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk Crl.R.C.No.343 of 2023

09.12.2024 Page No.9 of 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.12.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.R.C.No.343 of 2023 Muthu @ Kirukku Muthu, ...Petitioner/Appellant/Sole accused Vs. State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station, Peralam, Thiruvarur District. Crime No.20 of 2017 …Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence of the Judgment in Crl.A.No.16 of 2021 dated in 05.09.2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thiruvarur by confirming the Judgment in C.C.No.231 of 2017 dated 26.08.2021 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhusudanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)