IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.6.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.1290 of 2006 1.Bheeman 2.Kuttan ...Petitioners vs. The Inspector of Police, Thenaducombai Police Station, Ooty, The Nilgiris. ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 21.9.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Othagamandalam, in C.A.No.21 of 2006 modifying the judgement dated 24.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ooty, in C.C.No.240 of 2004. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Ramkumar For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. O R D E R Animadverting upon the judgement dated 21.9.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Othagamandalam, in C.A.No.21 of 2006 modifying the judgement dated 24.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ooty, in C.C.No.240 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. compendiously and concisely the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 326 of IPC as against A1 to A5; for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 323 (2 counts) as against A4 and A5; for the offences under Sections under Sections 147 and 447 IPC as against A6 to A9. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted. 3. During trial, on the prosecution side, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined; Ex.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. On the accused side no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the following sentences. Case No. Accused Offence Punishment imposed C.C.No.240 of 2004 A1 148 and 324 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default one week R.I U/s.148 IPC and 3 months R.I. And fine of Rs.250/-, in-defult one month R.I. A2 148 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I. A3 148 and 326 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I.U/s.148 IPC and 6 months R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-, in-fault, one month R.I.U/s.326 IPC A4 148 & 323 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I.U/s.148 IPC and 3 months R.I and fine of Rs.250/-, in-fault, one month R.I.U/s.323 IPC A5 148 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I. Aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the convictions recorded and sentences imposed, all the accused preferred appeal C.A.No.21 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, which Court modified the convictions and sentences as under:- Case No. Accused Offence Punishment imposed C.A.No.21 of 2006 A1 148 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default one week R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Case No. Accused Offence Punishment imposed A2 148 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I. A3 148 and 324 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I.U/s.148 IPC and one month R.I U/s.324 IPC A4 148 & 323 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I.U/s.148 IPC and 3 months R.I and fine of Rs.250/-, in-fault, one month R.I.U/s.323 IPC A5 148 IPC Imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.100/-, in- default, one week R.I. Challenging and impugning the judgement of the Sessions Court in the appeal, this revision is focussed by A3 and A4. 5. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would make a submission that the revision petitioners would be satisfied if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is modified or at least, if the pre-trial detention underwent by them is imposed as the substantive part of the imprisonment, and according to him, A3 and A4 were in jail for a period of 15 days. 6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentence of substantive imprisonment imposed as against the revision petitioners/A3 and A4 could be modified. 8. The gist and kernal of the prosecution case was that due to land dispute, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and staged the attack on P.W.1 and P.W.2-the father and son. The appellate Court held A3 guilty of the offence under Section 324 of IPC apart from other offence and imposed a substantive sentence of one month R.I. and the same appellate Court found A4 guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC apart from other offence and imposed the substantive sentence of one month R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. The finding of the appellate Court was that the prosecution had driven home the guilt of the accused A3 and A4 only relating to infliction of simple injuries and nothing more; however the appellate Court found that A3 used weapon to inflict such simple injury, whereas A4 inflicted simple injury without using any dangerous weapon. The fact also remains that there was some land dispute between the injured party and the accused party. The nature of the injuries also were not so horrible or horrendous. I am of the considered opinion that the pre-trial detention underwent by the revision petitioners/A3 and A4 could be imposed as substantive part of imprisonment and accordingly no more substantive imprisonment is required. 10. It appears, the appellate Court has not imposed any fine in respect of the offence under Section 324 IPC as against A3 and under Section 323 IPC as against A4. Hence, I would like to impose, in addition to the above substantive sentence of imprisonment of 15 days, a fine of Rs.2000/- as against A3, in- default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also similarly, in addition to the above substantive sentence of imprisonment of 15 days, I impose a fine of Rs.1000/- as against A4, in-default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accordingly, the sentence shall stand modified relating to A3 and A4. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Magistrate for enforcing the same. Since the accused A3 and A4 already underwent the pre-trial detention of 15 days, the substantive sentence of 15 days imposed on A3 and A4 shall stand set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 11. The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar msk To 1.The Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Othagamandalam. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Ooty 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thenaducombai Police Station, Ooty, The Nilgiris. Crl.R.C.No.1290 of 2006 CKN(CO) RVL 10.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/