Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2507 (MAD)

Chandran v. State by The Inspector of Police

2014-08-08

C.T.SELVAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. This revision is preferred against the two concurrent judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offences under sections 341, 354, 323 and 506(i) IPC and sentencing him to undergo 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.341 IPC, 1 year S.I. each in respect of offences under sections 354, 323 and 506(i) IPC. 2. Petitioner faced prosecution for offences under sections 341, 354, 323 and 506(i) IPC in C.C.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai. Prosecution case was that on 24.05.2003 at about 7.30 a.m., PW-1, a girl aged about 17 years was proceeding towards a coconut grove when the petitioner asked her to stop. PW1 started running and fell into a pit. The petitioner restrained her and caught hold of her left hand. PW1 pushed the petitioner aside and ran away. Petitioner threw a stone upon her, caused simple injuries and threatened her of dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anybody. A case was registered in Crime No.85 of 2003 on the file of the respondent for offences under sections 341, 354, 323 and 506(i) IPC. Pursuant to investigation, charge sheet informing commission of offences, came to be filed. 3. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 5 exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, rendered a finding of conviction and sentenced the petitioner to undergo 1 month S.I. for offence u/s.341 IPC, 1 year S.I. each in respect of offences under sections 354, 323 and 506(i) IPC and directed that the sentences run concurrently. Against such finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.124 of 2007 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 22.09.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side). 6. Upon consideration of rival submissions, this Court finds it proper to allow this revision for the following reasons: As against the evidence of PW-11, Inspector of Police, informing that Ex.P1, First Information Report, was registered at 09.00 a.m. on 25.05.2003, PW-1, in cross-examination, has informed of the complaint having been preferred at 05.00 p.m. on 25.05.2003. 6. Upon consideration of rival submissions, this Court finds it proper to allow this revision for the following reasons: As against the evidence of PW-11, Inspector of Police, informing that Ex.P1, First Information Report, was registered at 09.00 a.m. on 25.05.2003, PW-1, in cross-examination, has informed of the complaint having been preferred at 05.00 p.m. on 25.05.2003. It is the admission of PW-1 that the complaint was first lodged in a different police station on 25.05.2003 and that the accused appeared for enquiry and was let off by the police. The prosecution case was of PW-1 having given a complaint in Kannada, the same having been translated in Tamil by PW-6, Village Administrative Officer and reducing thereof in writing by PW-11, Investigating Officer. In Court, PW-1 has deposed in Tamil. PWs.3 and 4, persons to whom PW-1 had first informed the occurrence, have turned hostile. So has PW-9, observation mahazar witness. While PW-1 has spoken to having gone over to the occurrence village from her grandparents village at about 06.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence, it is the evidence of PW2, her mother, that PW-1 came to her house two days prior to the occurrence. As against the evidence of PW-1 that the occurrence took place while she was on the way to coconut groove, PW-7, a Doctor, who examined her, has deposed that PW-1 informed him of the occurrence having taken place in a paddy field. PW-7 has spoken to finding contusions of 5 X 4 cms. on the left forearm and left leg of PW-1 and to PW-1 informing him of having been beaten by use of hands and legs by a known person. PW-1 has deposed of having informed the investigating officer that she suffered injuries owing to falling into a ditch. The above noted discrepancies in the prosecution case are sufficient to allow this revision. It is necessary not to go into further minor discrepancies reflected in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 7 regards the time of occurrence. 7. This Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in C.A.No.124 of 2007 on 22.09.2008 confirming the judgment of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, passed in C.C.No.38 of 2005 on 12.11.2007, shall stand set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in C.A.No.124 of 2007 on 22.09.2008 confirming the judgment of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, passed in C.C.No.38 of 2005 on 12.11.2007, shall stand set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.