G. LAKSHMIPATHY Vs. STATE BY SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying the High Court to revise the Order of the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, dated 11-10-1988 and made in C.A. No. 119/ J8(C.C. No. 8123/87 XVI Metropolitan Magnate, G.T. Madras) Order:- This petition coming on for hear-agon this day upon perusing the petition, and the Order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Sudanthiram, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. S. Shamughavelayutham, for the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following Order:-

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 7-7-1987 at about 8.30 a.m. this petitioner who was working as Coach Attendor in Southern Railway assaulted his superior officer PW 1 as he assigned duty of attending the coaches. Both the Courts below have found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him. PW 1 is working as charge man in Basin Bridge Electrical Air Condition and Maintenance Department of Southern Railway. The Attendor of the Coach has to be in the coach whenever it is on his turn. It is the evidence of PW 1 that on 7-7-1987 when he came to duty Wound that one Nagarajan who was deputed for the duty on that day in the Air Condition loach reported that he was unwell and unable travel and as he could not be deputed on duty, he asked the other subordinates for their consent and as everybody was not willing to take up the duty on that day, he assigned the duty to the revision petitioner. But the revision petitioner who refused to join the duty quarrelled with him and threw a wooden stool on dim, on account of which, he sustained a deeding injury below his eyes. Though PWs 3 and 5 were examined as eye witnesses for the occurrence, they turned hostile and the evidence of PW 1 alone remained for consideration.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the uncorroborative testimony of PW 1 cannot be relied upon when especially the accused in his statement has stated that he gave a complaint against one Durai Raj who is a colleague of P W 1 and P W 1 has been set up by the said Durai Raj. When PW 1 is a superior officer of the revision petitioner, I do not think that he would have gone to this extent of giving false complaint against the revision petitioner falsely alleging that he was assaulted for the reason that he assigned duty to him. The evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 4. who has spoken about the lacerations below the left eye, in the upper lip and also a contusion near the left ear. For the reason that the evidence of PW 1 is not corroborated by any other evidence with regard to occurrence, it cannot be stated that the evidence of PW 1 is unreliable. As mentioned above when PW 1 is an officer attached to the Electrical Air Condition Department, I do not think that he stooped down, to this level of giving false complaint against his subordinate staff. There is no law that the un-corroborated testimony of a person, should not be acted upon. It is not the quantum of evidence that is required to prove the guilt of a person. On the other hand it is only the quality of the evidence. Therefore, as I find no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of PW 1, the Courts below are perfectly correct in accepting the guilt of this accused/revision petitioner for the offence under Sec. 332 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the findings on this aspect also cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel Mr. Sudanthiram represents that the revision petitioner who is unemployed for the last more than seven years on account of this proceedings can be shown sympathy by removing the stigma of this conviction so that he may make out his livelihood by joining the service. When the revision petitioner had pot only disobeyed the superior officer for the reason that he assigned duty to him, but also went to the extent of assaulting him with a wooden stool causing bleeding injuries on him. I feel that such person does not deserve any sympathy for reinstatement in his service. If that is done, it will amount to encourgement of the indiscipline and also the misbehaviour of the employees in the lower level. Therefore, I am not inclined to make any observation for the reinstatement of the revision petitioner in the post which he held before this occurrence. Hence the revision has to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.