Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3444 (MAD)

Selvaraj v. State

2018-10-03

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants dated 21.07.2008 made in S.C. No. 33 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No. 2), Trichirapalli, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution are as follows:- A-1 is the elder brother of PW-1. A-2 and A-4 are the sons of A-1. A- 3 is the wife of A-1. PW-1 and his family members are residing in the ground floor and the accused were residing in the upstairs in the same house. A-1 has borrowed a loan from the society by mortgaging the house where there was a dispute. As a result, a civil suit was filed by PW-1 not only against the society but also against the accused. In view of the same, there arose enmity between A-1 family and PW-1. On 01.06.2007, at about 7.00 p.m. when PW-1 was about to celebrate puberty function of his daughter, he made some arrangements in the house. At that time, A-4 brought aruval and handed over the same to the first accused and A-1 attacked PW-1 on his left hand side head and left hand. When PW-2 intervened, A-1 cut PW-2 on her head, right hand side chest and when she attempted to prevent the attack, her thumb was severed. A-2 cut PW-3 on his right hand. As a result of which his right thumb was severed. Thereafter, PWs. 1 to PW-3 were taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy. 3. PW-6, who is the Medical Officer admitted and treated PW-1 to PW-3 in the hospital at 7.40 p.m. and after examining PW-1, he found the following injuries:- 10 cm x 2 cm laceration on the left parietal scalp and 4 cm x 1 cm cut injury in the elbow and left thumb and issued Ex.P4/Accident Register in respect of PW-1 stating that the above injuries are simple in nature. 4. Similarly, PW-6 has also treated PW-2 and found the following injuries:- (i) 5 cm x 2 cm cut injury on the right chest (ii) 4 cm x 2 cm cut injury on the vertex and (iii) 7 cm x 2 cm cut injury on the right hand and on x-ray, a fracture on the right thumb and issued Ex.P5/Accident Register stating that the injuries 1 and 2 are simple and the third injury is grievous. 5. Similarly, on the same day, he has also treated PW-3 and found the following injuries:- (i) 5 cm x 2 cm cut injury on the left thigh, (ii) right thumb was amputated and (iii) 3 cm x 1 cm cut injury on the left forearm and issued Ex.P6/Accident Register stating that the injuries 1 and 3 are simple in nature and the second injury is grievous. 6. On information from the hospital, PW-7 Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No. 209 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. and sent the copy of the F.I.R. to the Investigating Officer-PW-8. Ex.P.7 is the First Information Report. 7. PW-8, on receipt of the FIR, went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch under Exs.P8 and P9 respectively. Thereafter, PW-8 arrested the second accused in the presence of PW-5 and recorded the confession statement of A2 and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P2 and seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 Aruval under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.3. Thereafter, he sent the second accused to judicial custody. PW-9 took up the case for further investigation and examined medical officer and after recording the statement of all the witnesses, laid a charge sheet against the accused. 8. Based on the material evidence, the trial Court convicted A-1 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment, A-2 and A-3 convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and A-4 convicted for the offence under Section 341 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. The main contention of the appellants is that the prosecution has suppressed the other version of the occurrence, in fact, the accused have also sustained injuries which had sought to be explained. 1000/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. The main contention of the appellants is that the prosecution has suppressed the other version of the occurrence, in fact, the accused have also sustained injuries which had sought to be explained. It is submitted that the case has been filed against the accused in connivance of the Head Constable against whom civil suit is pending and hence, the entire prosecution case is doubtful. 10. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place in the disputed house. He would further contend that the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused are not residing the disputed house and hence, some leniency may be shown to the accused. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, the specific overt- act attributed against the accused is proved and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Heard the learned counsels and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. Admittedly, PW-1 is the brother of A-1. A-2 and A-4 are the sons of A-1. A-3 is the wife of A-1. The accused were residing in the upstairs and in the same building, the prosecution parties were also residing in the ground- floor. This fact is not in dispute. The entire occurrence has taken place on 01.06.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. in the house itself. When PW-1 was attempted to remove some materials in the place occurrence for conducting puberty function of PW-1's daughter, there was tussle between the parties. As a result of which, A-1 to A-4 beat PW-1 to PW-3 with aruval. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 clearly indicates that they sustained injuries not only in the head but also hand, leg and in fact the thumb of PW-3 was severed in the occurrence. PW-2 has also sustained serious injuries in fingers. 14. It is the case of the accused that when prosecution witnesses attempted to attack A-1 and A-2 in exercise of their right of private defence, they attacked the prosecution witnesses. PW-2 has also sustained serious injuries in fingers. 14. It is the case of the accused that when prosecution witnesses attempted to attack A-1 and A-2 in exercise of their right of private defence, they attacked the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of PW-6- Medical Officer clearly shows that the cut injuries sustained by PW-1 on his head and left thumb and the cut injures sustained by PW-2 on the chest, head and right knee and there was also fracture on the right knee. It further shows that PW-3 sustained cut injuries on the left thigh, left hand and right thumb was partially amputated. They were immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Trichirappalli, on the same day, at about 7.40 p.m. and thereafter, a crime was registered by PW-7, on the same day itself. 15. On the side of the defence, DW-1 was examined to substantiate the contention that the accused also sustained injuries. DW-2 Sub-Inspector of Police, in her evidence deposed that there was a previous complaint against the prosecution witnesses. DW-3 evidence clearly shows that the accused have also sustained some minor injuries in the occurrence. However, the prosecution has not produced any documents to rebut such evidence. 16. Be that as it may. The evidence of DW-3 clearly shows that the injuries sustained by the accused party are minor whereas the injuries sustained by PW-1 to PW-3 are grievous in nature. Though the evidence of DWs. 1 and 3 shows that there was a tussle between two families inside the house that itself cannot be a ground to hold that they had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, it is the case of the accused that they attacked PWs. 1 to 3 only in exercise of their right of private defence and as a result of which they sustained injuries. Even assuming that there was some attack on the part of the witnesses at the time of tussle in the family, the nature of the injuries caused on the PW-1 to PW-3 clearly indicates that the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, the contention that the injuries caused only on the right of private defence cannot be countenanced. 17. Even assuming that there was some attack on the part of the witnesses at the time of tussle in the family, the nature of the injuries caused on the PW-1 to PW-3 clearly indicates that the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, the contention that the injuries caused only on the right of private defence cannot be countenanced. 17. Taking into consideration the location of the tussle which was taken place inside the house and the accused also sustained some minor injuries, I am of the view that instead of convicting A2 and A3 for a longer period, they may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation provided the injured/PWs. 2 and 3 adequately be compensated. 18. Accordingly, all the accused are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation within one month. The said amount shall be deposited before the trial Court on or before 08.11.2018. On such deposit, the sentence imposed by the trial Court shall be set off in respect of A-2 and A-3. Failure to deposit the said amount, the judgment of the trial Court shall be revived. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed insofar as A-2 and A-3. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed insofar as A1 and A4 since they have already undergone the period of sentence imposed by the trial Court.