Ramasamy v. The Inspector of Police,

ORDER This petition has been filed to set-aside the order made in S.C.No.384 of 2014, dated 09.09.2015 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankarankovil, thereby, modifying the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in C.A.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity on

04.12.2012 at about 04.30 p.m, when PW1 along with his brother namely PW2 were carrying body of their grandmother for burial near Palvadi, Anganvadi street, Azhagunatchiyarpuram, the petitioners/A1 & A2 intercepted them and scolded with filthy language and also attacked them with wooden log and iron sword (,Uk;G ths;). Initially, the first accused attacked PW1 on his left side head and again he was attacked on his backside of the head. When PW2 prevented the accused from attack, the second accused attacked PW2 with iron wall and it was prevented by his hand and as such he sustained deep cut injury in the left hand thumb to wrist particularly the left hand thumb chopped off. Immediately, the others, who were got participated in the death procession had taken PW1 and PW2 to the Government Hospital, Sankarankovil. Thereafter, they were referred to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli for further treatment. After their statement, the respondent police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.247 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 325 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The prosecution also produced material object marked as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the petitioners were guilty and convicting them for the offence under Section 341 of IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week and for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week and for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and thereby, acquitted the second accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC alone and confirmed the conviction for the offences under Section 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC. Hence, the present revision.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are contradiction between the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW9. Further there was confused with regard to M.O.1. According to the prosecution witnesses, the weapon, which was allegedly used for the crime without handle, whereas M.O.1 produced before the trial Court is having handle. Therefore, the recovery of material object are highly doubtful, since PW5 mahazar witness had not supported the case of the prosecution. That apart, there was a delay in lodging the complaint and as such the present complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners with mala-fide intention. He further submitted that the petitioners are the witnesses in the civil case, which was ended as against the relatives of PW1 and PW2. Due to the said previous enmity, the false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. In fact, there were thousands of persons participated in the death procession, even then prosecution failed to examine any independent witness. He further submitted that the first petitioner is having three daughters and the second petitioner is having three sons. They were only the sole bread-winners of their family and so far, they were not involved in any case. Therefore, they sought to invoke Probation of Offender Act by imposing some compensation.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners herein had intention to do away the life of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, when they were proceeding to the burial ground to the death of their grand mother, the petitioners, who were lead them and attacked them with sickle and iron saw. Therefore, both were sustained grievous injury and admitted in the hospital. PW1 sustained head injury and PW2 sustained grievous injury on the left hand wrist Therefore, they PW1 sustained fracture on the skull and PW2 sustained fracture on the left hand wrist. There were eye witnesses and they were deposed as PW3 and PW4 and they are not related to PW1 and PW2. They are independent witnesses. That apart, their evidence clearly corroborated with the evidence of Doctor -PW10, who treated PW1 and PW2. The prosecution also recovered the weapon, which was used in the crime and marked as M.O.1. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the case beyond any doubt and as such the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioners for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and other offences. Therefore, they are not entitled for any lenience under the Probation of Offender Act.

¶5Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

¶6PW1 and PW2 are brothers. The petitioners / A1 & A2 herein are also brothers. Admittedly, there was a previous enmity with both family. In order to do away the life of PW1 and PW2, the petitioners way laid the PW1 and PW2 when they were proceedings to burial ground to bury their grandmother and when PW1 was carrying the dead body of his grandmother and attacked them with wooden log and iron sword (,Uk;Gths;). They also scolded them with filthy language. The first petitioner/A1 attacked with wooden log on PW1's right side head and also attacked back side of the head. The second petitioner/A2 herein attacked PW2 with iron sword on his head and fortunately, he prevented the said attack by his left hand, which rested on his left wrist thereby, there was deep cut injury. In fact, half of the hand broken and laying down. Immediately all the general public intercepted and protected the PW1 and PW2 from further attack of A1 and A2. Both were immediately taken to Government Hospital, Sankarankovil, thereafter, referred to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and admitted as in-patient and taken treatment. The Doctor, who recorded the Accident Register examined as PW8. He found that the following injuries: ''04.12.2012

md;W

Rkhh;

04.30 kzpastpy;

tlf;F

moFehr;rpahh;Guj;jpy; RLfhl;Lf;F nry;Yk;NghJ milahsk; njhpe;j 2 Mz; egh;fs; m.rh.1 – I fk;ghy; mbj;Jk; mUthshy; ntl;bAk; fhaq;fis Vw;gLj;jpajhf nrhd;djhff; $wpAs;shh;. mtiu ghpNrhjid nra;jjpy; fPo;f;fz;l fhaq;fs; fz;Ls;shh;. 1) jiyapd; ,lJ gf;fk; g;uhz;Nlh ngiul;ly; gFjpapy; 10 x 2 nr.kP vYk;G Moj;jpy; xU rpije;j fhak;> 2) mNj gFjpapy; vYk;gpy; fPwy;> 3) jiyapd; gpd;gf;fk; ,lJ gf;fk; ngiul;ly; vYk;gpy; 9 x 2 nr.kP x vYk;gpd; Moj;jpy; xU rpije;j fhak;> mNj fhaj;jpy; vYk;gp;y; fPwy; fhzg;gl;ljhfTk; Mf;rpngl;ly; gFjp (jiyapy;) 5 x 4 x 12 nr.kP mstpy; xU rpije;j

fhak;

Mfpa

fhaq;fs; fhzg;gl;Ls;sJ. m.rh.1 w;F toq;fg;gl;l tpgj;J gjpNtL m.rh.M.8 MFk;. m.rh.2 w;F Vw;gl;l fhak; gw;wp m.rh.8 kUj;Jth; Fwpg;gplifapy; ,lJ if kzpf;fl;L mUfpy; 15 x 8 vYk;gpd; Moj;jpy; ntl;Lf;fhak; mNj rij vYk;G ntl;lg;gl;L if ghjp njhq;fpa epiyapy; fhzg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,lJ if Kl;Lf;F fPo; 10 x 6 x 1 nr.kP mstpy; rpije;j fhak;

(3) new;wpapy; 3 x 1 nr.kP vYk;gpd; Moj;jpw;F rpije;j fhak; fz;Ls;shh;".

7.The Accident Register of PW1 was marked as Ex.P8 and the Accident Register of PW2 was marked as Ex.P9. Thereafter, they referred to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, where PW10 – Doctor treated them. He also corroborated the injuries found by PW8.

¶8PW1 and PW2 are injured witnesses. PW3 and PW4 are eye witnesses of the occurrence. On perusal of evidence of PW3 had revealed as follows:- 'ehd;

md;dhGuzhGuk;

fpukj;jpy; trpj;J tUfpNwd;. Rhl;rp nrhd;d m.rh.1> 2 MfpNahh;fis vdf;F njhpAk;. M[h; vjphpfis vdf;F njhpAk;. Ch;> ngah; vdf;F njhpAk;.

04.12.2012 md;W kjpak; 12 kzpf;F vq;fs; ChpUe;J tlf;F moFehl;rpahh;Guk; fpuhkj;jpw;F Crl.R.C(MD)No.855eofe2017 fUg;ghak;khs; ,we;j J\;bf;F nrd;Nwd;. mdW;

4.40 kzp mstpy; fUg;ghak;khs; gpNujj;ij RLf;fhl;Lf;Fo J}f;fpr; nry;Yk; NghJ mq;Fs;s mq;fd;thb njUtpy; cs;s ghy;thb gf;fk; nry;Yk; NghJ mg;NghJ m.rh.1 kw;Wk; m.rh.2 MfpNahh;fs; vq;fSld; te;jhh;fs;. mg;NghJ tlf;F moFehl;rpahGuj;ij Nrh;e;j uhkrhkp> Rg;gpukzpad; MfpNahh; fiyauridAk;> nre;jpy; FkhuiuAk; topkwpj;J epy;Yq;flh Njtbah kfd;fsh> Gz;lkfd;fsh vd;W $wp xd;Wtpl;l gq;fhspf;F rhl;rp nrhy;yj;jhd; nra;Ntd; vd;W nrhy;yp cq;fis nfhy;yhky; tplkhl;Nlhk; vdW; nrhy;yp ,uhkrhkp jd; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j fk;ghy; fiyaurd; jiyapy; ,lJ gf;fk; Xq;fp mbj;jhh;. mbj;jjhy;mtUf;F jiyapy; ,lJGwk; ,uj;jf; fhak; Vw;gl;lJ. mjd; gpd;G ,uhkrhkp fiyaurdpd; gpd;GwKk; mbj;jjpy; ,uj;jf; fhak; Vw;gl;lJ. cq;fis nfhy;yhky; capNuhL tplkhl;Nlhk; vdW; nrhy;yp> ,jid jLf;f te;j nre;jpy;Fkhiu Rg;gpukzpad; jd; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j thshy; Xq;fp ntl;bdhh;. nre;jpy;Fkhh; mjid jdJ ,lJ ifahy; jLj;jhh;. ,lJ ifapy; ngUtpuypy; ,Ue;J kzpf;fl;L tiu xU Mokhd fhak; Vw;gl;lJ. ,uhkrhkp jd; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j fk;ghy; ,lJ Koq;iff;Ff; fPNo Xq;fp mbj;jhh;. gpd;G ,lJ gf;f new;wpapYk;> ehbapYk; ,uj;jk; fhaj;ij fk;ghy; mbj;J cz;L gz;zpdhh;.nre;jpy;FkhUf;F Koq;ifapy; xU ntl;L Vw;gl;lJ. mJ Rg;gpukzpadhy; ntl;lg;gl;lJ.

mijg;ghh;j;J

ehq;fs; mq;F ,Ue;j egh;fs; rj;jk; Nghl;Nlhk;. Rg;gpukzpad; jd; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j this mq;fd;thb fopT ePh; tha;f;fhypy; Nghl;Ltpl;L nrd;W tpl;lhh;. ,uhkrhkp jd; ifapy; itj;jpUe;j fk;Gld; Xb tpl;lhh;. mjd;gpd;G xU Ml;Nlhit gpbj;J ehDk;> Ngr;rpKj;JTk; m.rh. 1> 2 it kUj;Jtkizf;F nfhz;L Ngha; Nrh;j;Njhk;".

9.It is clearly corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW3 is an independent witness and he had enmity with the accused. It is also corroborated by PW4, who also independent witness. Therefore, thus it is clear that the petitioners attacked PW1 and PW2 in order to do away their life. Fortunately, both were escaped from the petitioners. When PW1 and PW2 were proceeding to burial ground to carry the dead body of their grandmother, the petitioners waylaid them and attacked them. Hence, their intention is very clear and both the Courts below rightly convicted them. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the sentence alone may be set aside under the Probation of Offenders Act, since they had un-married children and they are the only bread-winner of the respective family by ordering compensation. In the manner of which, the petitioners attacked PW1 and PW2 shows their clear intention in order to do away the life of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, it is not the case for consideration under the Probation of Offender Act. However this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence alone to some extent. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court against the petitioners, is hereby confirmed for both the offences under Sections 341 and 294(b) of IPC. Insofar as the sentence alone is reduced from seven years to three years for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Insofar as the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is hereby confirmed. The respondent is directed to secure the revision petitioners/A1 & A2 and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

¶10Accordingly this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

24.03.2023 NCC : Yes /No Index : Yes / No vsd

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. vsd To

1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankarankovil.

2.The II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madruai.

24.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.Ramasamy 2.Subramaniyan ...Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (In Crime No.247 of 2012) ...Respondent Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment delivered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankarankovil in S.C.No.384 of 2014, dated 09.09.2015 and which has been subsequently modified by the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.107 of 2015, dated 21.09.2017 and set aside the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.side)