Mohan v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :23.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN CRL.R.C.No.461 of 2019

1. Mohan S/o, Natarajan

2. Asha, W/o, Mohan

...Petitioners/Accused 1&2

Versus

State rep. By The Sub Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai - 21.

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 07.07.2018 made in C.A.No.103 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 16.02.2017 made in C.C.No.466 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioners: No appearance For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records relating to the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 07.07.2018 made in C.A.No.103 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 16.02.2017 made in C.C.No.466 of 2016 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and set aside the same.

2. No representation for the petitioners when the matter came up on 06.08.2021. Since there was no representation for the petitioners, the matter is adjourned today for final disposal. Even today, when the matter is came up for hearing,

there is no representation for the petitioners. The Revision Petition is pending from 2019 and the petitioners are not cooperated for the disposal of the revision.

3. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.1076 of 2014 for the offence under section 326 IPC and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. Totally there are three accused in this case and the petitioners are A1 and A2. After the completing the investigation laid a charge sheet before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The learned Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file and framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence under sections 326, 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. In order to substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution totally seven witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked. Besides that two material objects were exhibited.

4. After the completion of trial, the learned Magistrate come to the conclusion that the petitioners committed the offences under section 326 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-each in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. However not found guilty for the offence under section 506(ii) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed the appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and the learned Sessions Judge taken the appeal on file in Crl.A.No.143 of 2017. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials, dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate. Challenging the judgment of dismissal of the appeal, the accused have filed the present Revision before this Court.

5. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners and heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

6. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2014 defacto complainant's wife Kareema called upon him to visit her sister's house. When they reached her sister's house, due to enmity, the first accused beat the defacto complainant with wooden log and the second accused also beaten him with cricket bat and caused grievous injuries. Subsequently he was admitted in the hospital and given treatment.

7. P.W.1 is the injured witness and he has also examined as P.W.1. He deposed that the petitioners attacked him with knife and wooden cricket bat and caused injury and subsequently the injured was taken to the hospital. P.Ws.5 and 6 are doctors who have given treatment to P.W.1 and they issued wound certificate

Ex.P3 and accident register Ex.P4. On a perusal of the materials and also the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness, doctors' evidence P.Ws.5 and 6 and the medical records wound certificate and accident register, it is found that P.W.1 sustained injury which were caused by the petitioners. Therefore the trial court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 326 of IPC. Then the accused approached the appellate court, the final court of fact finding, re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.

8. The scope of the revision is very limited and the revisional court while dealing with the revision has to see as to whether there is any perversity in the appreciation of evidence in the judgment. But, on a reading of the available materials and the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness and the doctors' evidence P.Ws.5 and 6, the wound certificate and the accident register, it is found that the injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature. The doctor has also opined that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature. Therefore, while deciding the revision, the Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the appellate court and reappreciate the entire materials.

There is no reason to discard the evidence of injured witness which is natural, consistent, cogent and trustworthy which inspires the confidence of the Court. In this case, there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence and there is no merit in the revision and considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 6, Exs.P3 and P4, this Court also does not find any merit in the revision and the revision case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Revision Case is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mfa To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, H-1, Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai - 21.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

CRL.R.C.No.461 of 2019 SJ CO) RGA(17/09/2021)