THIYAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by judgment, dtd. 29/4/2022 in SC.No.15 of 2016 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruttani (Trial Court) for offence under Sec. 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and the petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Sec. 294(b) IPC. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.43 of 2022. The Lower Appellate Court, by judgment dtd. 10/10/2022 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court, against which the present criminal revision case is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, there are totally ten witnesses, of which, PW1 is the wife of PW5/injured witness, PW2 and PW3 are the neighbours, PW4 and PW6 are the witnesses for Observation Mahazar (Ex.P10), Rough Sketch (Ex.P9), arrest and seizure. Except PW1 & PW5, the eye witnesses and other private witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7, the Doctor serving in MIOT Hospital deposed based on the records of medical treatment given by one Dr.Sudeep Madhukar Nambiar. PW8 is the Doctor attached to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. PW9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered FIR (Ex.P8) and PW10 is the Investigating Officer. In this case, both the Courts below primarily based the conviction primarily on the evidence of PW1, the wife of PW5/injured witness. PW1 admits that she had not seen the occurrence and only after hearing the sound, she came to the scene, found the petitioner running from the scene. He further submitted that the evidence of PW8 is that PW5 suffered injuries on his left side frontal region, skull bone fractured and he took treatment as inpatient from 12/10/2012 to 21/11/2012 for 40 days. It is further projected that the injured/PW5 was initially taken to Nagari Government Hospital, thereafter to SIMS Hospital and Apollo Hospital, Tirupati. Since the Doctors there not given life assurance, PW5 was taken to MIOT Hospital, Chennai on 11/10/2012 at 04.20 a.m. Thereafter, the injured/PW5 was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai where he took treatment as inpatient from 12/10/2012 to 21/12/2012 for 40 days. The Investigating Officer admits that he recorded the statement of the victim/PW5 at his house on 30/10/2012, but the Doctor's evidence is that the injured brought to the hospital in an unconscious state, further he was taken treatment as inpatient, in such circumstances recording of PW5's statement in his house, is false. As submitted earlier, the evidence of PW1 is highly doubtful. In the cross examination, PW1 admits that she had not seen the occurrence proper. The categorical evidence of PW5 is that two person assaulted him but unable to identify the persons who assaulted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a neighbour to PW1 & PW5 and there was some dispute between them prior to the occurrence. Hence, the injuries sustained by PW5 in the field due to a fall taken advantage and the petitioner falsely implicated in this case. The recovery of MO1 is highly doubtful and no independent witness supported the recovery. Hence, the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court convicted the petitioner merely on surmises and conjunctures and not based on evidence.

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that on humanitarian consideration, the petitioner handed over a demand draft in No.026141, dtd. 8/4/2025 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakh only) to PW5/injured, without prejudice to the submissions made. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision.