IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.A.No.497 of 2003 Renganathan .. Appellant/Single Accused Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kancheepuram.(Crime No.208 of 1999) .. Respondent Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 23.1.2003 in S.C.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Kancheepuram. For appellant : Mr.J.Shiva Ganesh For respondent: Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side). JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.1.2003 in S.C.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Kancheepuram, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 448 IPC and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment and he was also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo four weeks' simple imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for each count, in default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment for each count. The sentences imposed on the appellant-accused was directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.W.2 Jayalakshmi is the daughter of P.W.1 Subramani. P.W.1's wife is P.W.3 Annammal. They were residing at Kollaimedu in Vedal Village at Kancheepuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) P.W.1's daughter Thulasi was washing her clothes in the nearby tank (Vhp). At that time, one Mohan attempted to rape her. That has been intimated by Thulasi, to her brother Gurumurthy, who is one of the sons of P.W.1. Gurumurthy in turn went to the land and intimated to P.W.1. (c) P.W.1 caught hold of Mohan and took him to Panchayat President Govindaraj Naicker. At that time, Kannan and Murugan, who are the sons of Ellappa Naicker, took away Mohan and attacked P.W.1. Since the Panchayat President was not in the Village, the Panchayat was convened on the very next day. (d) Before the Panchayat was conducted, Kannan and Murugan went to P.W.1's house and assaulted P.W.3 Annammal, P.W.2 Jayalakshmi, P.W.1's sons—Sundaramurthy, Gurumurthy, Vinayagamurthy and Harikrishnan. Then, P.W.1 took them to Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and subsequently, after two days, they were discharged from the hospital. (e) At about 10 p.m. P.W.1 and others went for sleep. When P.W.1 was sleeping, at about 12 mid night, he received one assaulted on his right side head. Then, the accused assaulted P.W.2 on her right hand forearm. They witnesses P.W.2's house which was under fire. They witnessed the accused running away from the place. (f) Then, P.W.1 gave information over phone to Police Station. P.W.5 Govindaraj, Sub-Inspector of Police was on rounds and he received information on 17.3.1999 at about 1 a.m. and he rushed to the place of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 and the other injured persons were sent to Government Hospital, Kancheepuram. Then, in the Hospital, P.W.5 Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement/complaint from P.W.1, which is Ex.P-1 and it was registered in Cr.No.208 of 1999 for the offences under Section 147, 148, 324 and 436 IPC and Ex.P-4 is the FIR. (g) P.W.6 Vinayagam, the Fire Officer received information at 1.30 a.m. on that day and he rushed to the place at 1.43 a.m. and he extinguished the fire. He has given a report that the damage value in the fire is Rs.7,000/- and the recovery from fire was assessed at Rs.8,000/-. (h) P.W.4 Doctor has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and gave Exs.P-2 and P-3 accident registers. (i) P.W.8 Inspector of Police received the file and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-7 observation mahazar and Ex.P- 8 rough sketch. He seized M.Os.1 to 9 under Ex.P-9 mahazar in the presence of one Ramu and P.W.7. (j) P.W.8 Inspector of Police examined other witnesses and recorded their statements and concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The trial Court, after framing necessary charges, questioned the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked and M.Os.1 to 9 were produced. The trial Court questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would fairly concede that the sentence of four weeks' simple imprisonment imposed on the accused for the offence, has already been undergone by the appellant-accused and he has also paid the fine amounts and hence, learned counsel left the matter to the Court for consideration. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Police would contend that since the appellant-accused has already undergone the period of imprisonment ordered by the trial Court, the conviction and sentence may be confirmed. 6. Considering the evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clearly proved that the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and caused injury to P.Ws.1 and 2. Even though P.W.6 Fire Officer has stated that he extinguished the fire and he assessed the damage, there is no evidence to show as to who set the fire to the house of P.W.2. Hence, the trial Court came to the correct conclusion that the appellant-accused is only guilty of the offence under Section 448 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.300/-. It is stated that the fine amount has already been paid by the appellant-accused. I concur with the findings of the trial Court and the conviction and fine imposed on the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 448 IPC are liable to be confirmed. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 during night hours and assaulted them and caused injury which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.4 Doctor and Exs.P-2 and P-3 accident registers. This shows that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC. So, the conviction for the offence under Section 324 IPC based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and Exs.P-2 and P-3, is sustainable. Hence, the conviction passed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 (2 counts) is also liable to be confirmed. 8. Since as per the statement of learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Government Advocate, the accused was already in prison for six weeks, the sentence imposed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial Court for the offence under Section 324 (2 counts) has already been undergone by the accused. It is also stated that he has also paid the fine amount imposed for the offence under Section 324 (2 counts) IPC. 9. I do not find any merit in the Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (a) The conviction and fine imposed on the appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 448 IPC are confirmed. (b) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) are hereby confirmed. 10. As informed by both sides, the appellant-accused has already paid the fine amounts for both the abovesaid offences and he has already undergone the period of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 324 IPC (2 counts). The same is hereby recorded. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar cs To 1. The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Kancheepuram. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kancheepuram.(Crime No.208 of 1999) 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.A.No.497 of 2003 VSV(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/