TAMIL SEVANE Vs. STATE OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Case No. 52 of 1990, on the file of additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the petitioner Tamilselvan was charged and tried for the offences under Secs. 452 and 307, I. P. C. , and sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300 in default to undergo R. I. for two months, under each count, directing the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner, challenging this conviction and sentence filed an appeal in C. A. No. 32 of 1991, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry , who ultimately by his judgment dated 8. 1. 1992, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and confirmed the conviction for the offences under Secs. 452 and 307, I. P. C. , and modified the sentence of R. I. for three years into one of R. I. for one year, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial court. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows: THE petitioner was working in SICA Breweries at Pondicherry. P. W. 1, the victim in this case, n. I. Khan, was also working in the same concern as Personal Officer. On the basis of certain charges, P. W. 1, as a Personal Officer, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner/accused. Aggrieved over this, on 29. 4. 90 at about 8. 00 P. M. , the petitioner went to the house of P. W. 1. At that time, P. M. 1, and his daughter P. W. 3 were sitting in the car. P. W. 1 sitting in the driver seat was trying to start the car to go out. On seeing this, the petitioner who carried M. O. 2 bag with him rushed towards the car and took out M. O. 1 aruval from m. O. 2 bag and dealt a cut on the right forearm near the right elbow of P. W. 1. Immediately, P. W. 1 got down from the car, after opening the car and ran into his house. THE petitioner/accused chased him P. W. 2, the wife of P. W. 1, who was inside the house, on seeing this, came front and blocked his way, preventing the petitioner/accused from entering into her house. P. W. 3. the daughter of p. Ws. 1 and 2 came near the accused and caught hold of his hands. On hearing the hue and cry, P. W. 5 who was loading some soda bottles inside the house of p. W. 1, came and tried to catch the accused. However, the petitioner wriggled out and ran away. But, P. W. 5 chased him upto Balaji theatre and caught him. THEn, he took the accused to P. W. 9, Head constable attached to Grand-Bazaar police Station, from there, he was taken to D-Nagar Police Station, the jurisdiction police.

(3.) AS correctly pointed out by Mr. Gopalakrishnan, this court need go into the factual aspects, which had been elaborately dealt with by both the courts below. But at the same time, it is to be pointed out that one important aspect has been overlooked by the Courts below in this case. A thorough reading of Ex. P. 1, complaint, an earliest document, which has been given by P. W. 1, would reveal that while P. W. 1 was sitting in his car parked in front of his house at about 8. 00 P. M. , and trying to start the same, suddenly the accused appeared there and his with an aruval on the right hand near the elbow of P. W. 1, which he kept at the door of the car, while the left hand was at the steering, that before the accused could make another attack, he got down from the car, that P. W. 5 Kumar, his family friend ran towards the accused to catch him, but the accused ran away, and that thereafter both P. W. 5 and the complainant chased him. But P. Ws. 2 and 3 in their evidence would say that after the complainant received a cut on his right hand rushed to his house, but the accused chased him and trespassed into the house, in order to make a further attack and at that point of time, P. W. 2, the wife of P. W. 1 stopped him and P. Ws. 3 and 5 caught hold of the accused. If this portion of evidence is believed, then the conclusion would be that the trial court as well as the first appellate court are correct in convicting the accused for offences under secs. 452 (trespass) and 307 (attempt to murder), I. P. C. But, since P. W. 1 in his complaint, Ex. P. 1 does not refer about the second portion of the occurrence, then this Court is to find out as to what was the actual offence committed by the accused, on the basis of the earliest materials found available in this case.