Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2704 (MAD)

R. Suresh v. M. Ranchimuthu Selvi

2013-07-29

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment :- The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The defacto complainant had levelled a complaint against the revision petitioners herein /accused 1 to 4 stating that on 24.05.2008, all the accused i.e., her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law had poured boiling rice water that was piping hot on her left shoulder. On 10.04.2008, her father-in-law made a cut injury on her left hand joint with a shaving blade and demanded dowry. Her parents are unable to pay the dowry since they already spent a huge amount for her marriage. She was examined as P.W.1 and her mother and doctors have been examined as P.W.2 to P.W.7. The doctor in her evidence had stated that the injured person had been assaulted by her mother-in-law and due to this burn injuries was visible on her body. She deposed that one Dr.Shivaraj had treated the injured person. It is seen from the evidence of the doctor that the said criminal case has to be tried before the Sessions Court and the case has to be registered for an offence under Section 307 of IPC since all the accused had attempted to kill her by way of pouring boiling rice water besides inflicting cut injuries on her left hand joint with a shaving blade. Hence, the criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the defacto complainant for amendment of appropriate section. 2. The accused had filed a counter statement stating that as an after thought, the complainant has filed the amendment petitions on frivolous grounds. As per the defacto complainant's complaint dated 24.05.2008, the case has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The ingredients of the complaint made by defacto complainant does not warrant that the offence should be covered under Section 307 IPC. The same issue has not been raised at the time of filing charge sheet. Now, the prosecution case is at a partly heard stage and the case has been posted for cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no prima facie case in the said petition. 3. The same issue has not been raised at the time of filing charge sheet. Now, the prosecution case is at a partly heard stage and the case has been posted for cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no prima facie case in the said petition. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the amendment petition and framed the offence committed by the accused as one under Section 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act and also Section 307 of IPC. As such, the learned Magistrate held that the case has to be tried by the Sessions Court. 4. Against the said impugned order, the revision has been filed by the accused. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended on the grounds of revision that the lower Court failed to peruse the complaint given by the defacto complainant before the police. It was contended that the defacto complainant had never stated in the complaint about the intention of the petitioners to murder the defacto complainant. It was contended that the defacto complainant while deposing as P.W.1 had categorically stated about the intention of the petitioners to murder her only to black mail the petitioners and to fill up the lacuna in the written complaint. It was contended that the trial Court in its haste to pass the impugned order had wrongly made out a new case in favour of the respondent and denied justice to the petitioners. It was contended that if the impugned order is not set-aside, it will be in the nature of a final order affecting the substantial rights of the petitioners in a permanent manner and as such, there is no bar of Sub Section 2, to Section 397 Cr.P.C. It had contended that amendment petition has been filed as an after thought i.e., after a delay of three years from the date of filing the final report. He further contended on the grounds of revision that if the said prosecution case is amended as per the order of trial Court, the character of the prosecution case would be changed and the accused will be prejudiced and also put into hardship. 6. The learned counsel for the State argued that on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1, her mother, and the concerned doctors were examined. 6. The learned counsel for the State argued that on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1, her mother, and the concerned doctors were examined. P.W.5-doctor had adduced evidence that P.W.1 had sustained burn injuries due to the assault of her mother in-law. Further, doctor Shivaraj had administered medical treatment and issued wound certificate. P.W.1 had been treated at Anna Nagar Hospital, for burn injuries and plastic surgery operation was conducted and therefore, the nature of injuries and medical treatment and situations of occurrence clearly show that cut injuries had been inflicted by use of a shaving blade and pouring of boiling rice water and therefore, the offence has been clearly made out to be one under Section 307 IPC. 7. The highly competent counsel further submitted that P.W.1's father-in-law had used a shaving blade and inflicted cut injuries on left hand after forcibly pushing her and that she had tied her husband's shirt over the cut injuries. He further submitted that on the next day, when P.W.1 was cooking rice, her mother-in-law took the boiling rice water and poured it on her shoulder as a result of which, her skin was scalded. Thereafter, she had been taken to the City Tower Hospital, wherein a plastic surgery was conducted and photographs were taken which revealed the scalding of the skin. Her husband had hit her on her cheek and as such, she had sustained internal injuries, in her mouth and therefore, the nature of the offence comes under the purview of Section 307 IPC. In order to prove the injuries, wound certificate was marked and therefore, the case is squarely covered under Section 307 IPC and hence the prosecution case has been amended. The very competent counsel further contended that by amending the section, the character of the prosecution case will not be changed and the accused will not be prejudiced. The duty of the prosecution is to prove the case against the accused and as such, the accused will not be put into hardship since they have not sought any relief before the Court. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy for allowing the amendment petition. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any discrepancy for allowing the amendment petition. This Court's further view is that as per the doctor's evidence, she had sustained burn injuries and P.W.1's skin had been scalded and a surgical operation was conducted, therefore, it is evident that these injuries had been inflicted by others and therefore, the nature of offence, is a heinous crime. Hence, framing of offence as one under Section 307 is appropriate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision. This Court further directs the concerned learned judge do dispose the said case on topmost priority without being influenced by this Court's discussion. 9. In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1117 of 2011 in C.C.No.180 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, dated 15.07.2011, is confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.