Madhanagopal and another vs Krishna Rao

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the order of conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, of Chengai Anna Division at

Chenglapattu in C.A. No. 17 of 1990 confirming the order of Conviction of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruvallur in C.C. No. 230 of 1988

for the offence u/s 323 of Indian Penal Code to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.

The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 26.3.1988 at 9:30 P.M. The complainant and two witnesses were examined as P. Ws. 1

to 3 who have spoken about the occurrence. The allegation in the complaint is that when P.W.1 was proceeding to his field, the first accused first

revision Petitioner who came by that way scolded him and his mother, with abusive words for the reason that the water was taken by him through

the channel, that when he said that the matter could be discussed on the next day, both the accused beat him causing the scratches on his chest,

P.W.2 who is the Panchayat President has stated that on hearing the noise he saw the accused persons beating P.W.1. Though P.W.3 would state

that he has also witnessed the occurrence, in the cross examination he admitted that he did not witness the occurrence personally. Therefore,

relying upon the evidence of P. Ws.l and 2 the Courts below convicted the revision Petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. The learned Senior

counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is not supported by P.W.4 the Doctor. As the doctor says that

except the scratches on the left shoulder and the right fore arm, no other injuries were found on P.W.I, whereas P. Ws.l and 2 would state that

P.W.1 was beaten by both the revision Petitioners and he sustained injuries on his shoulder.

One important aspect that was brought to my notice is the non-production of the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1 before the

Sriperumbuthur Police on the next day of the occurrence. P.W.4 the Doctor in his evidence has stated that on 27.3.1988 P.W.1 was produced

before him under a memo issued by Sriperumbuthur Police and he examined P.W.1 for the injuries found on his body. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.4 shows that a complaint ought to have been given by P.W.1 to Sriperumbuthur Police, some how, that complaint has not been brought

before the Magistrate to find out the earliest version of P.W.1, before the Police. As the private complaint was given one month after the alleged

occurrence, the Court has to scrutinise the earliest version of the complaint to find out whether the subsequent complaint was in conformity with the

earliest version of the complainant. A doubt is created now whether the version in the complaint given to the police was same as alleged in the

private complaint, because if there was no change in the version, the complainant could have easily summoned that records from the file of the

Sriperumbuthur Police Station and as the complaint was not sent for, from the file of the Police, a reasonable doubt arises as to why the

complainant avoided to send for the earliest complaint. If the version is constant, the complainant could have easily summoned the document. As

this aspect has not been explained to me by the prosecution to convince my doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons. Hence the

Courts below were not correct in convicting the revision Petitioners for the offence u/s 323 of Indian Penal Code and the same is liable to be set

aside.

In the result, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the revision Petitioners are acquitted. The revision is allowed. The fine amount paid

by the Petitioners, shall be refunded to them.