BAIL SLIP The Appellant/Accused viz., Srinivasan was directed to the released on bail in an by order of this Court dated.10.4.2007 made in MP.No.1/07 in Crl.Rc.No.559/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:24.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.559 of 2007 Srinivasan ... Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Sub Inspector of Police Vanoor Police Station Dindivanam (Vanoor P.S.Crime No.341/99) ... Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.03.2007 in Crl.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Dindivanam, confirming the judgment dated 17.11.2006 in C.C.No.304 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaanoor. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhikumar for Mr.D.SThirumavalavan For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.(crl.side) O R D E R Animadverting upon the order dated 16.03.2007 in Crl.A.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Dindivanam, confirming the judgment dated 17.11.2006 in C.C.No.304 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaanoor, this criminal revision is focussed. 2. An epitome and the long and short of the case of the prosecution as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed to the effect that on 24.09.1999 at about 22.30 hrs., the accused barged into the house of Sekar, aged 22 years and attacked him with knife owing to previous enmity and caused grievous injury on his left elbow and also two other simple injuries, one on his head and another on his right elbow. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against the accused, for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 326 r/w 506(2) IPC. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted and during trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined; Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. 4. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the sentences as under: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Case No. Offence Punishment imposed --------------------------------------------------------------------- C.C.No. U/s 452 IPC Six months R.I., fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, 304/2000 in default to pay the fine amount, one month Simple imprisonment. U/s 326 IPC Six months R.I., fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, one month Simple imprisonment. Sentence to run concurrently --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Being disconcerted and dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appeal in C.A.No.3 of 2007 was filed for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 6. Animadverting upon such recording of conviction and imposing of sentences, this revision is filed on various grounds finding fault with the judgments of both the Courts below. However, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make a supine submission to the effect that he is restricting his argument only for the purpose of getting reduction in sentence, so to say, he would implore and entreat that the sentence of one month already undergone by him might be imposed as punishment and the sentence of fine imposed shall be left in tact. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the sentences imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court, are in order? 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (crl.side). 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused by drawing the attention of this Court to the facts that the very Doctor who gave treatment to Sekar was not examined and one other Doctor who was conversant with the signature and handwriting of the said Doctor was examined and he had not produced the X-ray and there is no detailed description of the nature of the alleged grievous injury sustained by the accused, would argue that it could only be taken as simple injury and even in the FIR, only Section 323 IPC was referred to and in such a case, this Court could pass a sentence of one month imprisonment which he had already undergone. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would object for reduction of sentence. P.W.6, Dr.Sahu who was examined on the prosecution side would depose before the Court that he was conversant with the handwriting and signature of the Doctor who gave treatment and through him Ex.P3, the wound certificate was marked. However, he fell into error in stating that in the said certificate there is no reference to X-ray. But a plain perusal of the said Ex.P3 would reveal that X-ray was taken and it revealed that there was a fracture of the left elbow. The core question arises as to what was the actual nature of the grievous injury. It is one thing to say that there was fracture and yet it is another, to point out clearly what was the gravity of the fracture. There are various types of fractures, like simple fracture, compound fracture, etc. Unless in detail the nature of the fracture is found established, this Court cannot have a clear view of it in its mind's eye about the nature of the fracture. 11. I am fully aware of the fact that for the offences under Section 326 IPC, even life imprisonment is contemplated and it all depends upon the gravity of the grievous injury inflicted on a person with dangerous weapon. But here, technically alone it is found proved that the injured sustained fracture. Hence I would like to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sentence of one month imprisonment if imposed, that would meet the ends of justice and accordingly, this revision is partly allowed by reducing the two sentences of six months rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 452 IPC as well as under Section 326 IPC to one month simple imprisonment. If already as stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the accused had underwent the one month imprisonment, the same shall be adjusted and treated that the punishment of substantive imprisonment is concerned he had already undergone, as otherwise he is to be committed to the prison to undergo the punishment imposed herein. Regarding fine part is concerned, it left is tact. In the result, this criminal revision case is partly allowed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar gms To 1. Additional District Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Dindivanam. 2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. 3. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaanoor. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Villupuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vanoor Police Station, Dindivanam. 7. The Public Prosecutor, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr.D.S.Thirumavalavan,Advocate,SR.35025 Crl.R.C.No.559 of 2007 PUR(CO) EM/25.8.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/