Deivinol Ammal vs Sivaparammal and Others

K.M. Natarajan, J.—The private complainant (P.W. 1) has filed this revision praying for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused in C.C. No:270 of 1980 by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mannargudi.

The Petitioner herein has preferred a private complaint against the Respondents accused before the court below alleging that on 14th August, 1979, at about 5.30 a.m. when she bad been to Arasur, for fetching water, the fourth accused abused her in filthy language and obstructed her from taking water, while accused 1 to 3 best her (sic) hands on her back, chest and face and (sic) simple injuries, and that the police (sic) take any action on the complain given to her.

To substantiate the above allegation, the Petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and four other witnesses. P.W. 2 is the (sic) P.W. 1. P.W. 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. P.W. 5, the Medical Officer examined the Petitioner for the injuries sustained by her and issued the wound certificate Ex. 1.

When the accused were questioned u/s 313 , Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the (sic) as false and stated that no such occurrence took place as alleged and that this case has been foisted at the instance of one Bhai, when was inimically disposed towards them

The learner Magistrate accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and convicted the accused 1 to 3 u/s 323, I.P.C. and the 4th accused u/s 341, I.P.C. and referred them on admonition u/s 3of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner is that the nature of punishment imposed of the second Respondent is totally inadequate and not in conformity with the gravity of the offence and that the court below ought to have imposed a sentence of fine and, hence enhancement of sentence is called for.

I have gone through. the evidence and the judgment of the court below. P.W. 5 the medical officer, who examined the Petitioner, did not find any external injury on her person, but the Petitioner only complained of (sic) all over the body and P.W. 5 issued the wound certificate, Ex. P1 to that effect had also gave evidence. In cross-examinations also P.W. 5, had stated that the Petitioner came to the hospital on her own accord and she did not tell that she was attacked by any known person and that the pain complained by her might he due to travel. In view of the fact that there was no external injury on the person of the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the gravity of the offence alleged requires any enhancement of sentence. Even though the learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence of the Medical Officer, P.W. 3, while arriving at a finding, yet he had given sufficient reasons for invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. The question of sentence is entirely in the discretion of the court. On going through the materials placed before me I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner that enhancement of sentence is called for in this revision. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly invoked the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in the instant case and hence no interference is called for in this revision.

Even on the question of maintainability, a Division Bench of this Court held in Krishnamoorthy and Elumalal, in re1 that a private complainant is not entitled to file a revision for enhancement of sentence in view of the provisions of Section 377, Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the result, this revision is dismissed.