IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.3.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.1400 of 2007 Ayyapan .. Petitioner/A1 Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kullanchavady Police Station, Cuddalore District. .. Respondent/complainant Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 23.8.2007 in Crl.A.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore, against the judgment dated 5.1.2005 in C.C.No.89 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.3, Cuddalore. For petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER The Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 23.8.2007 in Crl.A.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment dated 5.1.2005 in C.C.No.89 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.3, Cuddalore. 2. The skeleton of the case of the prosecution is as follows: On 26.4.2000 at 5 p.m. at Kullanchavadi Market Road, the revision petitioner/A1 Ayyapan assaulted P.W.3 Dhanasekaran, S/o Muthukumarasamy in the right little finger and A-2 assaulted P.W.3 on his left eye-brow and caused simple injury. A-3 assaulted P.W.3 on his body and caused pain. The charge sheet has been filed against A-1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC, against A-2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and against A-3 for the offence under Section 352 IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The trial Court, after furnishing necessary documents and after framing charges, and after considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 and the documentary evidence of Exs.P-1 to P-5 and M.O.1, acquitted A-3 and convicted A-1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and A-2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo four months' simple imprisonment, against which A-1 and A-2 preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.2 of 2005 before the appellate Court and after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal, against which, A-1 (revision petitioner) has preferred this Crl.R.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A1 submitted that the complainant was examined as P.W.3 and except himself, the other two witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, the alleged eye- witnesses turned hostile. There is enmity between P.W.3 and A-1 as the revision petitioner/A-1's brother was murdered by P.W.3 and in the Sessions Case, in S.C.No.33 of 2002, he was acquitted in the alleged occurrence that took place on 13.4.1999. The occurrence in the present case took place on 24.6.2000. Since the revision petitioner/A1 was in jail for more than 31 days, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A1 prayed for leniency in the sentence. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that even though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile, P.W.3 complainant is the victim and his evidence is cogent, natural, trustworthy and reliable and on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/A-1 is guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that P.W.6 Radiologist and P.W.7 Doctor were examined to prove that P.W.3 sustained grievous injuries. He further stated that P.W.5 is one of the attestors of the observation mahazar. The trial Court and the first appellate Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and the impugned judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference and prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 24.6.2000 at 5 p.m. and the complaint has been given on the same day at 10 p.m. and the case was registered against the accused. Even though the alleged eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile, P.W.3 is the injured victim who is the complainant and his evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ corroborates the averments in the complaint. While considering the evidence of P.W.3, there is no reason for discarding his evidence and his evidence is natural, cogent, convincing and trustworthy and hence, it is reliable. 7. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the revision petitioner/A1 alone caused injuries on his right little finger, which caused disfiguration and fracture and that has been substantiated by the evidence of P.W.6 Radiologist and P.W.7 Doctor who issued the wound certificate and so, Ex.P-1 complaint and Ex.P-2 wound certificate and the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 and so, I am of the view that the revision petitioner/A1 caused grievous injury on P.W.3, the complainant and hence, the trial Court and the first appellate Court are correct in holding that the revision petitioner/A1 is guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC and the same is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner/A1 is confirmed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A1 submitted that due to the previous enmity, P.W.3 the complainant, himself has caused the murder of the revision petitioner's brother and the alleged occurrence of murder took place on 13.4.1999 and so, the occurrence has taken place in a heat of anger and so, even though A-3 was acquitted of the charge, the petitioner/A1 was in jail for more than 31 days, and hence, learned counsel prayed for leniency in the sentence. 9. It is true that for the offence under Section 326 IPC, imprisonment is mandatory and as per the submission of the learned Government Advocate, revision petitioner/A1 was in jail for 20 days and considering the nature of the case, I am of the view that the period already undergone by the accused is treated as the sentence, but however, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and that the balance fine amount of Rs.3,000/- has to be paid as compensation to P.W.3 complainant. 10. In fine: (a) The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. (b) The conviction of the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. (c) The sentence of imprisonment is modified to the one already undergone by the revision petitioner/A1. (d) The fine amount of Rs.2,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, in default, the revision petitioner/A-1 shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) Out of the total fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, the trial Court is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to P.W.3/complainant. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Cuddalore. 2. Judicial Magistrate's Court No.3, Cuddalore. 3. The Inspector of Police, Kullanchavady Police Station, Cuddalore District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.1400 of 2007 17.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/