This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed in SC No.554 of 2016 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankarankovil, dated 30.01.2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2016 due to previous enmity, when PW1 was near Van Stand at T.N.Puthukudi, the accused came towards PW1, abused him and also caused injuries with aruval. The Inspector of Police attached to Puliyankudi Police Station has registered a case against the accused for the offence under
sections 294(b) and
307 IPC.
3.The trial court, after careful perusal of the entire materials available on record, both oral and documentary found the appellant/sole accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under
section 307 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/accused is before this court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5.PW1 is the victim and he gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in his complaint and evidence stated that the accused tortured his wife and the wife of the accused narrated the torture to him and for that, he warned the accused and at one stage the wife of the accused separated from the accused and the accused thought that only due to him, his wife separated from him and got some enmity with him and due to enmity, on 17.07.2016 at 6.00 pm when he talked near T.N.Pudukudi, at that time, the accused came and said that “njtoah Tjpkfnd cd;dhy; jhd; rpWf;fpa[s;s vd; FLk;gk; gphpe;J thH;e;J tUfpwJ mjw;F eP jhd; fhuzk; eP capnuhL ,Uf;ff;TlhJ ,j;njhL brj;J ngh” and assaulted with aruval and caused injury on his left side of the scalp and due to it, his left side ear was amputated and then, the accused caused injury between his left wrist and knee and after hearing his alarm, the persons such as Ayyasamy, Vedasamy and Magalingam came, the accused ran away and the above persons took him in an auto and admitted in the Palayamkottai Government Hospital and he gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police.
6.PW1 during his cross examination admitted that prior to two years, he saw the torture committed by the accused towards his wife and he waylaid the accused at that time and it was known http://www.judis.nic.in 4 to Esakkiyappan, Natarajan and Ganesan. The contention of the accused is that he has not committed any offence. But while cross examining PW1, the learned counsel appearing for the accused put a question that the accused used obscene words and then stated not to interfere and then assaulted him. For that, PW1 admitted the fact. Hence, the accused himself admitted the occurrence. Hence, it is held that in respect of the occurrence, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents found in Ex.P1 complaint.
7.PW2 to PW4 are cited as eye witnesses. PW2 deposed that the accused and his wife separated and prior to six months, when he was standing at T.N.Puthukudi Bus Stand, PW1 stood from 5 feet far away and then he heard the noise and saw PW1 with blood injury. In this case, PW2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. But during his cross examination by the prosecution, PW2 stated that after hearing the noise, he saw that the accused assaulted PW1 with aruval. Even though PW2 turned hostile, his evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Hence, from the evidence of PW2, it reveals that he saw that the accused assaulted PW1 with aruval.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8.PW3 and PW4 deposed that the accused tortured his wife and PW1 warned the accused and due to it, enmity arose between the accused and PW1 and on 17.07.2016, when they stood in T.N.Pudukudi Bus Stand, the accused came and assaulted PW1 with aruval and caused injury on the PW1's left side scalp, left ear and left hair and then, they took PW1 in an auto and admitted in the Government Hospital Puliyankudi. PW3 during his cross examination admitted that he saw that the accused tortured his wife. While cross examining PW4, the learned counsel for the accused put a question that at the time of occurrence, it is slightly dark and hence it is not possible for PW2 to PW4 that who assaulted PW1. For that, PW4 replied that they identified the accused. Hence, from the evidence of PW3 and PW4, it reveals that there was dispute between the accused and his wife and since it was warned by PW1, the accused developed enmity with the accused and assaulted PW1 on the date of occurrence. It is not the contention of the accused that he was not known to PW2 to PW4.
9.PW5 is the wife of the accused. PW5 deposed that she heard the occurrence. The contention of the accused is that the accused and his wife separated and afterwards, the accused has not http://www.judis.nic.in 6 come to the place of occurrence and committed the offence and PW1 was assaulted by some other persons,since he has some other enemies.
10.In this case, the Investigating officer was examined as PW11. PW11 during his cross examination stated as follows:-
“vdJ tprhuizapy; m.rh.1> vjphp> m.rh.5 I ,uz;L tUlq;fshf gphpe;J thH;e;J tUtjhft[k; Mdhy; ,uz;L khjq;fSf;F xUKiw vjphp m.rh.5aplk;
brhy;ypapUf;fpwhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.”
11.From the above cross examination, it reveals that even after the separation between PW5 and the accused, the accused used to come to the house of PW5 and subjected her to cruelty. Hence, the motive is proved on the side of the prosecution that the accused tortured his wife and when it was questioned by PW1, the accused developed enmity with PW1.
12.The Doctor, who gave treatment to PW1 was examined as PW8. PW8 found the following injuries on the body of PW1:- http://www.judis.nic.in 7 (1)Left ear torn 14 x 6 x 7 cm deep ruptured wound found;
(2)Left front hand 8 x 6 x 6 cm ruptured wound; and (3)Middle finger in left ruptured wound.
13.PW1 deposed that the accused with aruval caused injury on his left side of his scalp and due to it, his left ear was amputated and further, the accused caused injury between his wrist and forearm in his left ear and middle finger of in his left hand. PW8 also found injuries on left ear, left front hand and middle finger of left hand of PW1. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of PW8.
14.The learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that the accused had no intention to murder PW1 and PW1 has the habit of calling the others wife as “mj;ij kfs;” and due to it, PW1 had number of enmities and only due to the enmities, he was assaulted, not by the accused and prays that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
15.PW1 categorically stated in his complaint and evidence that he warned the accused for torturing his wife and due to it, the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 accused developed enmity with him and assaulted him on the date of occurrence. To prove that PW1 had other enmities, no contra evidence was let in on the side of the accused. Hence, it is held that the motive is proved on the side of the prosecution. Further, the accused pleaded alibi. To prove it , no document was filed on the side of the accused.
16.At this juncture it is necessary to refer
section 307 IPC, which would run thus:-
“307.Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as to hereinbefore mentioned.”
17.In this case, the accused tortured his wife and when it was questioned by PW1, the accused developed enmity with PW1.
Hence, the accused had intention to murder PW1 though that only due to PW1, his wife was separated from him. Hence, the offence under
section 307 IPC is proved as against the accused. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
18.Even though the learned counsel appearing for the accused argued on merits, at last, he seeks leniency of this court to reduce the sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, while confirming the judgment of the trial court, this court finds that the punishment imposed on the appellant/accused requires modification.
19.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The punishment imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under
Section 307 IPC by the trial court is reduced to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment. The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant/accused, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone, shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period.
12.06.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er http://www.judis.nic.in 10 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J er To,
1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankarankovil
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.A(MD)No.305 of 2018 12.06.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 11 http://www.judis.nic.in