மகளிர் போலீஸை தாக்கிய வழக்கில் குற்றவாளிக்கு நான்கு பிரிவுகளில் தலா ஒரு வருடம் என ( ஏக காலத்தில் அனுபவிக்க)தண்டனை, ரூ.4750 அபராதம். Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor. .
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Judicial Form No. 61
(Cr.R.P 106)
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2022
Complainant The Inspector of Police,
K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai – 107.
(Crime No.78/2010)
Name of the Accused Manikandan, M/A. 23/2010, S/o. Krishnamurthy
Offence charges Section 294(b), 336, 353, 333, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charges under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and instead of the charge Section
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 15Mk; ehs; brt;tha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 212/2018
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006408-2018)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.52/2018 in (Crime No.78/2010-K-10, Koyampedu Police Station) on the file of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Section 294(b), 336, 353,
333, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
J.F.No. 61 – Page
333 IPC, the accused is found guilty for the lessor offence under Section 332 IPC.
Sentence Accordingly, the accused is convicted under
Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 332, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and sentences as below;
(i) to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 294(b) IPC, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month;
(ii) to pay a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 336IPC, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month;
(iii) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUSIMPRISONMENT with fine of Rs.1000/-,
indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 353 IPC;
(iv) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUSIMPRISONMENT with fine of Rs.1000/-,
indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 332 IPC;
(v) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT with fine of Rs.1000/-,
indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 427 IPC;
(vi) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUSIMPRISONMENT with fine of Rs.1000/-,
indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 506(ii) IPC;
(vii) Total fine Rs. 4,750/-;
(viii) The above sentences to run concurrently;
(ix) The period already undergone by theaccused from 14.01.2010 to 16.06.2010 shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The case properties M.O.1/knife, M.O.2/blood stained kaaki pant, M.O.3/blood stained kaaki shirt, M.O.4/blood stained innerwear and M.O.5/cool drinks bottle pieces are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there by appeal, after the disposal of appeal.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or
357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of Rs.4750/ paid by the accused, Rs.4000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C., to P.W.1/Tmt.Pappa. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under
Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1-
Tmt.Pappa, after due enquiry, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) Cr.P.C. out of the Victim Compensation Fund.
Description of the accused
Seri al
No. Name Father’s Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Manikandan Krishnamurthy Hindu Coolie No.67B, Nesavalar
Colony, (Pari
Quarters back side)
MKB Nagar,
Chennai – 39.
Also residing at
No.7/190,3rd Street,
Kannadasan Nagar, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 118. 23/2010
Date
of Occurrence 13.01.2010
Complaint-Final Report 09.03.2010
Apprehension or appearance 13/14.01.2010
Released on bail 16.06.2010
(As per the Order of the Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.O.P.No.13162/2010 dated 11.06.2010)
Commitment 17.05.2018
Commencement of Trial 07.08.2018
Close of trial 21.03.2022
Sentence or Order 29.03.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 29.03.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L.,
Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused M/s. D. Prabu, L.Vinoth, S. Benazir and V.Johnson
Yuvaraj
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM
CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
Dated, Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2022
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 15Mk; ehs; brtt; ha;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No: 212/2018
(CNR NO. TNCH01-006408-2018)
The Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai – 107.
(Crime No.78/2010) … Complainant
– Vs. –
Manikandan, M/A. 23/2010,
S/o. Krishnamurthy ,
No.67B, Nesavalar Colony, (Pari Quarters back side) MKB Nagar, Chennai – 39.
Also residing at
No.7/190, 3rd Street,
Kannadasan Nagar,
Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 118. … Accused
….2.
This Sessions case is taken on file on 12.06.2018 and came up on
21.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,
B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of M/s. D. Prabu, L.Vinoth, S. Benazir and V.Johnson Yuvaraj, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Inspector of Police, Koyambedu Police Station has laid a
Final Report in Cr. No.78/2010, before the committal Court of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 13.01.2010 at about
7.35 p.m. near the exit gate of CMBT bus terminus on the 100 feet road, Koyambedu, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 333, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.
2. It is alleged that on 13.01.2010 at about 07.35 p.m. the accused committed robbery from a person at second platform at CMBT bus terminus and fled. The public and police were chasing to catch him. When the accused tried to escape through the exit gate of CMBT bus terminus situated on the 100
….3.
feet road, the witness women constable Tmt.Pappa, who was on duty, saw the accused and tried to restrain and catch him. At that time the accused swayed a knife and inflicted injuries on her left cheek and on the dorsal of her left hand fingers and caused grievous injuries. Further, in the same transaction the accused abused the said witness in the public place by uttering filthy and obscene words and ran away and thereby acted in a rash and negligence manner endangering the life of the said witness and obstructed the public servant from performing her duty and threatened to kill her, if she catches him, and further the accused picked up the cool drinks bottle from a push cart shop and smashed it on the road and caused mischief to the tune of Rs.100/- and further threatened to kill if any one tries to stop him and fled away. Hence the final report.
3. Cognizance and Committal: On filing of the final report before the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, the offences were taken cognizance and the case has been originally numbered as C.C.No.1634/2010. After furnishing copies of the documents relied on the side of the prosecution under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the Learned Magistrate has framed charges against the accused and put him to trial. Three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
P.W.3. At that stage it was noted by the Committal Court that the offence under Section 333 IPC, voluntary causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty, is an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Hence the
….4.
Committal Court has converted the case as P.R.C. No. 52/2018 and committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai vide Order dated 17.05.2018 and bound over the accused to appear before the Sessions Court. The case was taken on file by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
4. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges: Upon
appearance of the accused and his counsel before this Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences which are exclusively triable by this Court of
Sessions, charge was framed under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 333, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
5. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 11 witnesses cited, 3 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
….5.
6. The case as set-out by the prosecution through the oral and documentary evidences produced on their side can be succinctly narrated as follows:-
6.1. P.W.1, Tmt.Pappa and P.W.2, Tmt.Subashini were working as
Grade-1 Police Constables in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force 12th Battalion. On 13.01.2010 on 8.00 a.m., they reported for duty at Koyambedu Police Station along with other women police constables. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were deputed for duty at
Koyambedu Bus Terminus on the entrance and exit gate on the 100 feet road.
6.2. At about 07.30 p.m. on the date, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 were guarding at the exist gate of the CMBT bus terminus, they heard noise shouting to catch a person. When they saw on that direction from where the sound came, they saw the accused running and he was being chased by Delta Male Police and they were shouting to catch the accused. Seeing it, P.W.1 went and tried to catch the accused. At that time the accused swayed a knife from the pant pocket and inflicted injuries on the left cheek of P.W.1. Once again he swayed his knife and when P.W.1 tried to block it with her left hand, accused inflicted injuries on
….6.
the dorsal of the left hand fingers. When she further tried to prevent the accused from escaping, he threatened her that he will finish her if she blocks him and further uttered obscene words “ததவவடயய மணணடட ” in the public and caused annoyance and so P.W.1 got nervous. When the delta police tried to come and catch the accused, he scolded all with filthy language and threatened them by showing knife and escape through the 100 feet road. At the time he picked up a soda bottle from the push cart shop and smashed it on the road. On seeing this the pubic and vehicles got stunned and stopped.
6.3. P.W.2, Tmt.Subashini witnesses the above occurrence. She called for an Ambulance and took P.W.1 to Sri Devi Hospital for treatment. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have identified the accused as the said assailant. While P.W.1 was at the hospital, on 13.01.2010 at about 21.30 hours, receiving intimation from the hospital P.W.3, Tr,Jeyachandran, then Inspector of Police, Koyambedu Police Station, went to the said hospital and received the complaint statement given by P.W.1. Ex-P.1 is the said complaint statement. P.W.3 then returned to the Police Station at 21.45 hours and registered the case in Cr.No.78/2010
….7.
under Sections 336, 294(b), 353, 332, 427, 307 and 506(2) IPC. Ex-P.3 is the printed F.I.R. He sent the complaint and the F.I.R. to the Court and took up the case for investigation.
6.4. On the same day at 22.15 hours P.W.3 went to the place of occurrence near second gate CMBT bus terminus and in the presence of witnesses Tr. Venkatesan and Tr.Ravi (both not examined) prepared the observation mahazar/Ex-P.4 and rough sketch/Ex-P.5. Further, he recovered the broken cool drink bottle pieces (M.O.5) under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.6 in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter, he examined the occurrence witnesses Tr.Achu and Tr.Appu and the mahazar witnesses Tr. Venkatesan and Tr.Ravi and recorded their statements.
6.5. On the same night, on receiving information about the presence of the accused near Koyambedu Flower Market, P.W.3 went to the place and arrested the accused in front of Shop No.FC 51 and recorded the voluntarily confession given by the accused in the presence of witnesses Tr. Sekar and Tr. Mahadevan. The accused gave a disclosure statement and identified and produced the knife used in the commission of the offence and also a sum
….8.
of Rs.1,000/- (2 Rs.500/- notes) from his possession. The admissible portion of the confession is marked as Ex-P.7. P.W.3 recovered the knife (M.O.1) along with cash under the cover of mahazar /Ex-P.8. The cash seized by P.W.3 is concerned in another case filed against the accused for committing robbery and therefore it is not produced as a case property in this case.
6.6. Further, the accused was produced before P.W.1 for
identification at the hospital on the next day at 5.30 a.m. and P.W.1 identified the accused as a assailant and further identified the knife (M.O.1) used by accused at the time of occurrence.
6.7. On the same day at about 11.00 a.m. P.W.2 produced the blood stained cloths of P.W.1, namely M.O.2- blood stained kakki pant; M.O.3 – blood stained kakki shirt; and M.O.4 blood stained inner-wear; at the police station and the same was received by P.W.3 under Form-95/Ex-P.2. Thereafter P.W.3 examined the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and recorded their further statements. Further he examined the witnesses Tr.Sekar and Tr.Mahadevan and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the accused was sent to Court for remand. M.O.1/knife was sent to Court under Form-95/Ex-P.9. M.Os 2 to 4 were sent to Court
….9.
under Form-95/Ex-P.2. M.O.5 was sent to Court under Form95/Ex-P.10.
6.8. Thereafter, in continuation of his investigation, P.W.3 examined the medical officers Dr.Ashok Kumar, who recorded the
accident register at Sri Devi Hospital and received the accident register in Ex-P.11. Further he examined Dr.Damodaran who issued the wound certificate for the injured/P.W.1 and recorded his statement and receiving wound certificate/Ex-P.12. The doctor has given an opinion that the injures are grievous in nature. Both the medical witnesses are not examined on the side of the prosecution and the summons were return along with the
Thasildar’s report and special report stating that the said Sri Devi Hospital has been shut down and sealed long back and the whereabouts of the doctor witnesses are not known. Ex-P.14 is the said special report for not examining the medical witnesses. Based on the investigation and materials collected during investigation, P.W.3 complete the investigation and submitted the final report along with alteration report, altering the offences from 336, 294(b), 353, 332, 427, 307 and 506(2) to Section 336, 294(b), 353, 333, 427 and 502(2) IPC. Ex-P.13 is
….10.
the alteration report. With this, the prosecution closed its evidence.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
7. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused was put to the accused and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During such examination, the accused has denied the incriminating circumstances against him and set up a defence of false case put up against him. The accused didn’t choose to examine any witnesses on his side and closed his defence.
8. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for
determination is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under section 294(b), 336, 353, 333, 427 and 506 (ii) of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
9. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused.
….11.
10. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 is the injured eye witness to the occurrence, she has clearly and cogently deposed narrating the occurrence and identified the accused as the assailant. Further it is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2 who was on duty along with P.W.1 at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that one of the independent witnesses cited on the side of the prosecution namely Tr.Achu died and the other witness could not be secured after lapse of nearly 12 years.
Therefore, the prosecution was unable to examine the independent witness. Further it is submitted that, similarly the witnesses for the confession, recovery could not be traced. Regarding non examination of the doctors who gave treatment to the injured witness(P.W.1), the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 was given treatment in a private hospital situated at Poonamalee High Road, the said hospital namely Sri Devi Hospital, was shut down and sealed 10 years ago, and therefore whereabouts of the doctors who was working in the said hospital at that time could not be secure for giving evidence before this Court. Further it is contended on the side of the prosecution that P.W.1 and P.W.2 being eye witnesses, in the absence of any material to discredit their evidence, they can be relied upon to prove the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not have any prior enmity against the accused to falsely implication him. In fact, it is submitted that P.W.1 being injured witness, she would not give a false evidence against an innocent person.
….12.
Further, it is submitted that the arrest and recovery of the knife used by the accused at the time of occurrence is seized during investigation and the same is identified by P.W.1. Hence, based on the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused would
vehemently rebut the contentions on the side of the prosecution and submitted that the prosecution has not produced any independent witness to prove the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 all being police personnel’s their evidence cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration. He also further contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 Police constables, being subordinate to their superior officers, they will be bound to give evidence as directed by their superiors and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon.
12. Further it is argued on the side of the accused that there are certain contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He pointed out that P.W.1 has stated that she is simply tried to stop the accused. Whereas, P.W.2 would say P.W.1 tried to block the accused with the Lathi. Further, he submitted that the police constable from the Delta Police constables, who were chasing the accused, are not examined as witnesses. No complaint is obtained from them
….13.
soon after the occurrence. Therefore, he submitted that in the absence of independent corroboration the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be relied upon.
13. Further, the learned Counsel for the accused, argued that the prosecution has not examined the doctors who gave treatment to P.W.1 to prove the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1 is grievous and the accused is deprived of opportunity to challenge the nature of injury by cross examining the medical officers. Hence, he contended that the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1 is not proved by the prosecution. Further, it is argued that the alleged arrest, confession and recovery is doubtful as the prosecution has not examined any independent witness for the same, It is submitted that the accused has escape from the place of occurrence, so, it is highly doubtful, he was found near the flower market at Koyambedu on the same day after committing the offence. Further, he submitted that there is no evidence as to how the identity of the accused was known before the arrest was made. Hence, it is submitted that the real culprit to commit the offence has escape and the Police have foisted a false case against the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution case cannot be believed and the same is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the oral and documentary evidence in detail. On the date of
….14.
occurrence ie. 13.01.2010 P.W.1 and P.W.2 are deputed on duty at the entrance of CMBT bus terminus on the 100 feet road side. The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted because P.W.1 has sustained injuries in the occurrence and P.W.2 has taken P.W.1 and admitted the hospital soon after occurrence. Therefore, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence is proved by the prosecution.
15. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have cogently or clearly narrated the occurrence without any material discrepancies or contradiction. They have clearly deposed that while they were on duty at the CMBT Bus terminus Gate they heard a hollering to catch the accused, who was fleeing after committing robber and being chased by Delta Police. Seeing this P.W.1 has deposed that she rushed forward and tried to block the accused and catch him. At that time the accused swayed a knife and caused injuries on P.W.1. Then, the accused has fled away after threatening her. P.W.2, has clearly corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The inconsistency pointed out of the side of the accused that P.W.1 has not stated she used her lathi (Police Stick) to stop the accused, while P.W.2 has deposed that P.W.1 tried to stop the accused with a lathi, is not a material contradiction to disbelieve their evidence. The objection raised at the time of examining P.W.2, since she was present in Court during the examination of
P.W.1 does not discredit her evidence. P.W.2 have give evidence independently
….15.
corroborating the facts. There is no material to show that her presence during the examination of P.W.1 has influenced her evidence in any manner.
16. Further, soon after the occurrence P.W.2 took P.W.1 and admitted her in Sri Devi Hospital. P.W.1 was taken to Sri Devi Hospital situated at
Poonamalee High Road on the same day i.e. 13.01.2010 at about 08.10 p.m. Ex-P.11/Accident-Register shows that it is mentioned that the injured was brought to the hospital to by her friend Tmt.Subashini (P.W.2). Further, Ex-P.11 disclose that the injuries found on P.W.1, which are (i) Lacerated wound left side of face extended from the ear size 7×2 cm, (ii) Lacerated wound left hand dorsum 10×2 cm extending from tendon of ring finger. It is 12 years since the date of occurrence and the prosecution is unable to examine Dr.Ashok Kumar and Dr.Damodharan, who issued the Accident-Register and wound certificate respectively, as their whereabouts is not know. So, P.W.3, Investigating officer, who examined the doctor and received the Accident-Register has deposed about receiving Ex-P.11/Accident-Register and Ex-P.12/Wound-certificate. The medical documents in Ex-P.11/accident register and Ex-P.12/wound certificate would materially corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the injuries sustained by P.W.1.
17. P.W.3, the Investigating Officer has deposed that he went to the hospital and recorded the complaint statement in Ex-P.1. Based on which the
….16.
criminal law set in motion by registering the First Information Report/Ex-P.3. Ex-P.1 and Ex-P.3 further corroborates the oral testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2 regarding the manner of occurrence. The contention that the complaint was not received from the delta police who chased the accused is not material to affect the prosecution case. P.W.1 being injured and admitted in hospital, P.W.3 has received hospital intimation and went to the hospital and recorded the complaint statement. He was not at the place of occurrence. There is no other materials to shows that any other information was received regarding the occurrence by P.W.3, the Station House Officer, prior to the hospital intimation. So, the contention on the side of the accused cannot be sustained.
18. The Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that there is discrepancy in the place of occurrence. It is mentioned in Ex-P.11/accident that the place of occurrence inside Koyambedu Bus Stand, but, in Ex-P.4/ observation mahazar and Ex-P5/rough sketch the place of occurrence is noted on the 100 feet road near the exit gate of CMBT Bus terminus. Therefore it is contended that the place of occurrence is not proved.
19. On perusing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 they have clearly stated that the accused came running towards the exit gate and when P.W.1 blocked him, he assaulted her with a knife and further abused her with filthy language and further escape through the exit gate by showing the knife and at
….17.
the time he picked up a soda bottle from the push cart shop on the 100 feet road near the said exit gate and smashed it on the road. During investigation, soon after registration of the F.I.R., P.W.3, the Investigating Officer, went to the place of occurrence and found the broken soda bottle at the place of occurrence, which is shown near the exit gate of CMBT bus terminus. He has seized M.O.5 broken bottle pieces under Ex-P.6/Mahazar at the shown place of occurrence. So, the occurrence has occurred near exit gate and extended up to the 100 feet road, where the bottle was broken. So, the contention that there is discrepancy in the place of occurrence cannot be sustained.
20. No doubt, the independent witness for the preparation of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar are not examined by the prosecution. But it is reported on the side of the prosecution that due to lapse of 12 years the said independent witnesses, who were chance witnesses at that time, could not be secured as their whereabouts are not known. Hence the reasons given by the prosecution for not examining the independent witnesses is sustainable. P.W.3/ (I.O.) has deposed about the preparation of observation magazar and seizure magazar. There is no law that prevents the evidence of police officers to be rejected or discredited in the absence of corroborating evidence from independent witnesses. It is trite law settled by various decision that the
….18.
evidence of police officers is like that of any other witnesses and can be relied upon for convicting the accused if their evidence is reliable and trustworthy.
21. In the case of State Government of NCT Delhi vs. Sunil, 2001
(1) SCC 652=2000 AIR SC 4398 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that;
“20. Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by the independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of thepolice officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the
….19.
legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
22. In the case on hand, P.W.3, the Investigating Officer does not have any enmity or vengeance against the accused. During cross-examination of
P.W.3 the accused has not elicited and material to show that the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 had any vengeance to wreak against the accused in order to foist a false case against the accused.
23. The identity of the accused is clearly spoken by both P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.1 being the injured witness, she had every opportunity to see the accused and is able to identified the accused. There is material to show that after the accused was arrested he was taken to the hospital where P.W.1 identified the accused an assailant. She has confirmed the same when examined before this
….20.
Court which could not be dislodged during cross-examination. There is no material to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 inspires the confidence of this Court in proving the identity of the accused as an assailant at the time of occurrence.
24. From the evidence of P.W.3 it is established that the accused was arrested on the same day at about 00.30 hours on the intervening night between 13/14-1-2010. He has given a disclosure statement and produced M.O.1 knife which was used in the commission of the offence. P.W.1 has identified the M.O.1 as the weapon of assault. The contention on the side of the accused that the recovery of Rs.1,000/- from the accused is not produced as material object in this case. It is submitted on the side of the prosecution that a separate case was filed against the accused for the offence of committing robbery, which is a separate occurrence, and the seized cash is produced in that case. The cash of Rs.1000/- recovered during investigation is not relevant for this case. This case is concerned only with the subsequent occurrence committed by the accused while escaping. The place of occurrence are different and they are two separate transactions. Hence the failure to produce the cash recovered from the accused does not affect the prosecution case.
25. One of the main contention on the side of the accused is that, the evidence of police personnel’s alone cannot be relied upon in the absence of
….21.
independent witnesses. The prosecution has cited two independent witnesses for the occurrence namely L.W.3/Tr.Achu and L.W.4/Tr.Appu. Unfortunately, L.W.3/Tr.Achu has died and the report is filed to that effect. The whereabouts of the L.W.4 is not known and therefore the prosecution is unable to secure the witnesses. It is not the number that counts to prove the case. But it is the credibility, trustworthiness and reliability of the witness that is produced on the side of the prosecution which counts. No doubt, the evidence of the police alone has to be examined with caution. Applying State Government of NCT Delhi vs.
Sunil, 2001 (1) SCC 652=2000 AIR SC 4398 cited supra, merely because P.Ws. 1 to 3 are police personals cannot be a reason to reject the prosecutions. The version given by P.Ws. 1 to 3 can be relied upon and accepted as correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through crossexamination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. No such material is placed on records. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is found to be trustworthy to prove the prosecution case. They have clearly narrated in the manner in which the accused has committed the offence. He has assaulted P.W.1 with knife and prevented her from performing her official duty as a police constable. Further he has abused P.W.1 in the filthy
words by stating “ததவவடயய மணணடட” in the public place and caused
….22.
annoyance. Further he has threatened P.W.1 and other that if they tries to catch him, he will kill them and further picked up a soda bottle and smashed on the road caused mischief and also acted in reckless and rash manner while fleeing from the place of occurrence. Hence the charge under Section 294(b), 353, 336 and 427 are clearly proved by the prosecution.
26. To attract the offence under Section 333 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused has caused grievous hurt to deter the public servant from doing his duty. No doubt in the case on hand there is ample evidence to prove that the accused attack P.W.1 with the knife (M.O.1) and prevented P.W.1, a police constable, a public servant on duty at CMBT bus terminus, from performing her duty. Now, the question is whether the prosecution as proved that grievous injuries is caused to P.W.1.
27. As rightly submitted on the side of the accused, the prosecution is unable to produce and examined the doctors who gave treatment to P.W.1.
The wound certificate in Ex-P.12 is marked through P.W.3, the Investigation Officer. In Ex-P.12, Dr Damodaran has given opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature. Section 320 IPC defines grievous hurt which categories the grievous injuries as below:
320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:—
….23.
First.—Emasculation.
Secondly.—Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly.—Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly.—Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.—Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.—Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly.—Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly.—Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
28. On perusing the medical records there is no material produced by the prosecution is proved that the injuries suffered by P.W.1 would fall within any one of the injuries listed under Section 320 IPC. Though P.W.1 says she sustained injuries on her face, she has not stated that it is caused any permanent disfiguration of the head or face. P.W.1 would say that he underwent treatment in the hospital for 12 days. So, in the absence of any evidence to show that the injuries fall within the list mention in Section 320 IPC, it cannot be concluded that the injury is grievous in nature. More over, due to non-examining the doctor who gave the opinion, the accused is deprived of his valuable right to challenge the opinion given by doctor. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the injuries suffered by P.W.1 is grievous in nature. On the other hand, its stands proved that simple hurt
….24.
is caused to P.W.1 to deter her from performing her official duty. Therefore, the offence proved by the prosecution would be a lessor offence Under Section 332 IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt to deter public serva nt from his duty and not under Section 333 IPC. Hence, the lesser offence under Section 332 IPC is proved by the prosecution.
29. Coming to the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC, the prosecution has established that the accused had the swayed the knife and had intention to threat P.W.1 and the public with death or grievous injury. P.W.1 would state that “அநதண நபயண எனணடன பயயணதணத தடதணதயலண உனணடன கதளயஸண சசயணத வவடதவனண எனணற மவரடணடனயயண ” P.W.2 would also deposed that “தமலமண கததண வடய பயயணதணத
எவனயவத எனடணன பவடகணக வநதணயலண கதளயஸண பணணணவவவடதவனண எனணற
சசயனணனயயண.” The act of the accused causing injuries to P.W.1 with knife and uttering the words threatened to kill her is sufficient to enough to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.
30. Therefore, from the above discussed evidence and facts and circumstances on record, this Court is of the considered view that, the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and instead of the charge under Section 333 IPC the lessor offence
….25.
under Section 332 IPC is proved. The point for determination is answered accordingly.
31. Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charges under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and instead of the charge
Section 333 IPC, the accused is found guilty for the lessor offence under Section 332 IPC.
//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed by her in computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of March, 2022//
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….26.
S.C No. 212/2018 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Manikandan)
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 29.03.2022 at 2,30 P.M.
32. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
நயனண fits நரமணப தளயணசசண வயயலண பயதவகணகபணபடணடளணதளனண . எனகணக அமணமய , அபணபய இரகணகவறயயணகளண. இநணத வழககண வறணக பவறக கடநணத 12 வரடஙணகளயக எனண மதம எநதண வழகணகமண இலடண ல.
33. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to 5.00 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 29th day of March, 2022.
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….27.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 212/2018 – DATED: 29.03.2022 AT 5.00 P.M.
34. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the the occurrence had taken place in the years 2010 and that since 12 years the accused is not involved in any other subsequent offences and he is leading a socially responsible life. It is further submitted the accused is suffering from fits (Nervous problem) and he cannot go out without the help of an assistant. It is also submitted that, even today morning when the accused came to attend Court, he suffered fits and fell down and sustained injuries and taken to hospital for treatment. Hence, considering the age, antecedents and subsequent good conduct of the accused, this Court may take a lenient view.
35. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor conceded that the accused has not involved in any subsequent cases since the occurrence in this case for the past 12 years and there is no adverse report against the accused. Further, it is also submitted today the accused fell down and sustained injuries and took treatment.
36. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused was aged 23 years at the time of occurrence i.e., on 13.01.2010. It is now about 12 years since the
….28.
date of occurrence. The prosecution has not placed on record any material to show any subsequent bad conduct or involvement of the accused in any subsequent offence. There is no adverse report against the accused. The accused is aged 35 year old now and he is leading a socially responsible life. The subsequent conduct of the accused shows that he is leading a reformed life. No doubt considering the nature of the offence, the accused has to be dealt with penalty. However, weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the possibility of the remorse and reformation by the accused weighs more. It has to be taken into consideration before imposing the sentence. Further, considering the health condition of the accused and the antecedents, possibility of leading a reformed and socially responsible life is more. Hence this Court is inclined to take a lenient view. Hence, considering the facts and circumstance this Court convict and sentence the accused as below;
37. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Sections 294(b), 336, 353, 332, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and sentences as below;
(i) to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 294(b) IPC, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month;
(ii) to pay a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 336 IPC, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month;
….29.
(iii) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT with
fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 353 IPC;
(iv) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT with
fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 332 IPC;
(v) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT with
fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 427 IPC;
(vi) to undergo ONE YEAR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT with
fine of Rs.1000/-, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 506(ii) IPC;
(vii) Total fine Rs. 4,750/-;
(viii) The above sentences to run concurrently;
(ix) The period already undergone by the accused from 14.01.2010 to 16.06.2010 shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:
38. The case properties M.O.1/knife, M.O.2/blood stained kaaki pant, M.O.3/blood stained kaaki shirt, M.O.4/blood stained inner-wear and
….30.
M.O.5/cool drinks bottle pieces are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there by appeal, after the disposal of appeal.
Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: –
39. Perused the evidence and considering the facts and circumstance, P.W.1 being a woman police constable, she has put her life in risk to perform her duty to secure the accused. In such an endeavour she has sustained injuries and was hospitlised for 12 days. Considering the extent of pain and suffering and the injuries suffered by P.W.1, it will be just and fair to give suitable compensation to P.W.1. Hence, out of the fine amount, of Rs. 4750/-, a sum of Rs.4000/- is ordered to be given an compensation to P.W.1.
40. Further, the amount of compensation given under Section 357(1)
(b) Cr.P.C. will not be sufficient to compensate the injuries suffered by P.W.1.
Hence, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to recommend under
Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority City Civil
Court, Chennai, conduct necessary enquiry and award adequate compensation to
P.W.1/Tmt.Pappa, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created under Section 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
41. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.4750/ paid by the accused, Rs.4000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c)
….31.
Cr.P.C., to P.W.1/Tmt.Pappa. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
42. Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C.
to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1-Tmt.Pappa, after due enquiry, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
43. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) Cr.P.C. out of the Victim Compensation Fund.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29thday of March, 2022//
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq, Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….32.
List of Witnesses examined:
On the side of the prosecution:-
P.W.1 :: Tmt. Pappa (Police Constable)
P.W.2 :: Tmt. Subashini (Police Constable)
P.W.3 :: Tr. Jayachandran (I.O.)
On the side of the accused: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution:
Exhibit Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 13.01.2010 Compliant given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2 14.01.2010 Form95
Ex-P. 3 13.01.2010 First Information Report (C 1547296)
Ex-P. 4 13.01.2010 Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 5 13.01.2010 Rough Sketch
Ex-P.6 13.01.2010 Mahazar
Ex-P.7 13/14.01.2010 Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.8 14.01.2010 Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.9 14.01.2010 Form95
Ex-P.10 14.01.2010 Form95
….33.
Ex-P.11 13.01.2010 Accident Register (No.4078)
Ex-P.12 13.01.2010 Wound Certificate (No.4078)
Ex-P.13 08.03.2010 Alteration Report
Ex-P.14 27.2.2021 Special Report
On the side of accused: NIL
List of Material Objects Marked:
On the side of Prosecution:
Exhibit No. Particulars
M.O.1 Knife-1
M.O.2 Blood stained Kaaki Pant-1
M.O.3 Blood stained Kaaki Shirt-1
M.O.4 Blood stained inner-wear-1
M.O.5 Broken cool drinks bottle pieces
On the side of the Accused: Nil
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. // TRUE COPY //
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
….34.
