This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, in Crl.A.No.41 of 2009, dated 16.11.2009, confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, in C.C.No.160 of 2008, dated 27.07.2009.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2008 at about 7.30 pm, when PW1 has questioned about the usage of public water by the accused, the accused used filthy language as against PW1 and poured away “boiling sambar” on the body of PW1, thereby caused injury. The Sub Inspector of Police attached to Thiruvaiyaru Police Station has filed a final report under
Sections 294(B) and
326 IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.
3.In the trial court, 10 witnesses were examined and 7 Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 326 IPC and sentenced her to undergo RI for one year and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months SI and acquitted the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 accused from the charge under
Section 294(B) IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed appeal in C.A.No.41 of 2009, which was heard by the I Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur. The first appellate Court modified the conviction into 6 months of SI and confirmed the fine amount. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, the revision petitioner/sole accused is before this court.
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/sole accused submitted that the motive between PW1 and the revision petitioner is not established by the prosecution; that PW1 during his chief examination as well as in the cross examination had categorically stated that the revision petitioner poured Sambar on PW1 backside, but the Doctor PW7, Author of Ex.P3 states that the injuries on the front side of PW1, which is material contradiction; that the independent witness did not support the prosecution version and PW1 evidence did not corroborate with any other evidence, even medical evidence; that the Courts below failed to see that the categorical evidence of the Doctor (PW8) in the cross examination is that the injury by PW1 may be caused by spray of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 hot water and in this regard, there was no clarification by the prosecution agency; that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of PW9, who conducted major portion of the investigation after registering the case and erroneously convicted the accused. In view of the above circumstances, the revision petitioner/accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the Courts below appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted the revision petitioner, which do not require any interference by this court and the revision petitioner is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.PW1 is the victim and she gave Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 in her complaint stated that on 05.07.2008 at 7.30 pm, the accused washed her clothes in the public tap and the water came to her house and when she questioned the accused with regard to taking bath in the public place, the accused used filthy language and went to her house and took hot sambar and splashed on her face and due to it, she shouted and further due to the hot sambar, she sustained injuries on her face, right hand, right shoulder, left side of the chest and then, she went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police.
8.PW1 in her evidence stated that on 05.07.2000 at 7.30 pm, the accused was taking bath in the public tap and the waste water came in front of her house and when it was questioned by her, the accused used filthy language and dragged her by holding her hair to the house of the accused and the accused splashed hot samber on the face portion from the right side of her and due to it, she sustained injuries on the face, right shoulder, chest and then, she went to the police station and gave the complaint. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents found in Ex.P1 complaint.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
9.PW2 is the sister of PW1. She deposed that on 05.07.2000 at 7.30 pm, when she was watching TV in her neighbouring house, at that time, the accused and her relatives taking bath in the public tap and the waste water went to haystack and it was damaged and due to it, she and PW1 questioned about the passing of water into the haystack of PW2 and due to it, the accused and her relatives dragged PW1 to the house of the accused holding her hair and she went to escort for PW1 and she and PW1 returned to their house, at that time, the accused came back and splashed the hot sambar on the right side of PW1 and due to it, PW1 sustained injuries and then, she and PW1 went to the police station and PW1 gave the complaint to the police. Hence, the evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1.
10.PW3 is cited as eye witness. But PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In this case, PW4 and PW5 are hearsay witnesses. PW7 is the Doctor, who gave treatment to PW1. PW7 deposed that PW1 told him that on 05.07.2008 at 7.30 pm, she was assaulted by a known person by pouring hot sambar on her face and he found burn injuries on the face, right shoulder and chest portion of PW1. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
11.Further, PW7 admitted during his cross examination that there is a chance for PW1 to sustain injury by way of pouring any hot liquor on the body and when the temperature of the substance is higher than 100'C, there is a possibility for 30% burn injury.
12.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that to constitute a hurt as grievous under Clause 80, the law only requires that the prosecution must prove that a space of twenty days at least the injury was in severe bodily pain or he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits and the medical evidence may be more reliable, but it is not legally necessary and where the injured stated that she was inpatient in the hospital for about a month and that he was unable to move or even to sit, his testimony should not be rejected if looking to the nature of injuries and the parts of the body in which they were inflicted, one can imagine that he must have been in severe bodily pain during the period and in this case, PW1 was in the hospital for more than 20 days and she has not severe pain and prays that the injuries sustained by PW1 is not grievous injury and prays that the accused is entitled to acquittal, by submitting the judgment reported in 1974 Crl.L.J-1239 (Jagannath Vs, State of Uttar Pradesh). http://www.judis.nic.in 8
13.In this case to prove that PW1 was in the hospital for 20 days, PW8 Doctor was examined. PW8 deposed that PW1 was admitted on 07.07.2008 and discharged on 25.07.2008 and he determined the injuries sustained by PW1 as grievous in nature and determined the above injuries 20% as burn injuries. PW8 issued wound certificate and it was marked as Ex.P4. On perusal of Ex.P4, it reveals that the injuries sustained by PW1 are grievous in nature and she got 205 burn injuries and further PW1 was in the hospital for 23 days. Therefore, it reveals that due to the above grievous injuries, she definitely got bodily pain. Hence, it is held that the injuries sustained by PW1 are grievous in nature.
14.Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that the accused has no previous enmity with PW1 and only due to sudden provocation, the occurrence took place and hence, the offence under
Section 326 IPC is not made out and only the offence
Section 335 IPC is made out and further, PW1 is the breadwinner of the family and the occurrence took place during the year of 2008 and hence, lenience may be shown as against the accused.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
15.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer
Section 335 IPC, which would run thus:-
“335.Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation:-Whoever (voluntarily) causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.”
16.In this case, no movie was put forth by PW1 either in her complaint or in her evidence. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it reveals that due to sudden provocation only, the accused poured hot sambar on the face of PW1 and due to it, PW1 sustained grievous injury. Hence, the offence under
Section 335 IPC is made out and not 326 IPC as against the accused.
17.On coming to the instant case, already it was decided that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of Doctor, the offence under
Section 335 IPC is proved as against the accused.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
18.On examination of the factual circumstances and happenings, which led to the commission of offence, on going through various legal positions and material information both oral and documentary and upon consideration of the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the offence committed by the accused does not attract the provision of
Section 326 IPC and it only attracts
Section 335 IPC and thereby converting the offence into
Section 335 IPC instead of
Section 326 IPC.
19.In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under
Section 326 IPC is altered into
Section 335 IPC. Considering the age and family circumstance of the revision petitioner, she is directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under
Section 335 IPC. The revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation to PW1/Anandhi, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The revision petitioner, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone, shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period. http://www.judis.nic.in 11 The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
11.09.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er http://www.judis.nic.in 12 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er To,
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.636 of 2009 11.09.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 13 http://www.judis.nic.in