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,  Monday, the 4^th day of  April, 2022.

2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 21Mk; ehs; jp’;fl;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 222/2018

(CNR NO. TNCH01-006835-2018)

ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI

(P.R.C. No.04/2018 in (Crime No.951/2016-K-11, CMBT Police Station) on the file of the Learned Additional Mahalir Neethimandram, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Section 341, 294(b) and

307  IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)

Complainant	The Inspector of  Police, K-11, CMBT  Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai – 107. (Crime No.951/2016)
Name of the Accused	Aravind Kumar, M/A. 32/2016, S/o. Sundaramurthy
Offence charges	Section 341, 294(b) and 307  IPC
Plea of accused	Not guilty
Finding	In the result, the accused is found guilty as charged for the offences under Section 341 and 307 of IPC.

J.F.No. 61 – Page

	Further, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 294(b) IPC, and the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charge under Section 294(b) IPC.
Sentence	The accused is accordingly convicted under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and sentenced as below; (a)            under Section  341 IPC, to undergo ONE MONTH RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week; (b)            under Section 307 IPC, to undergoIMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; (c)            total fine Rs.10,500/-; (d)            the period of sentence shall run concurrently; and (e)            the period already undergone by the accusedfrom 28.10.2016 to 30.11.2016 shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C.	The case properties M.O.1/blood stained knife, M.O.2/blood stained Chudithar Top and M.O.3/blood stained Thuppatta are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time,  if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Compensation Order U/s. 357 or 357A Cr.P.C			In fine, out of the fine of Rs.10,500/- paid by the accused, Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to the victim (P.W.7). The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there be 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 the Victim (P.W.7)  after due enquiry U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C, out of  The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018. 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) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.
Description of the accused
Seri al No.	Name	Father’s Name	Caste or race	Occupation	Residence	Age
1.	Aravind Kumar	Sundaramurthy	Hindu	Labour	No.7/2, West KVR Nagar, Thirupur District.	32/2016
	Occurrence		27.10.2016

J.F.No. 61 – Page

Date of	Complaint-Final Report	02.05.2018
	Apprehension or appearance	28.10.2016
	Released on bail	30.11.2016 (As per the Order of the Hon’ble Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.19412/2016 dated 21.11.2016)
	Commitment	14.06.2018
	Commencement of Trial	16.08.2018
	Close of trial	25.03.2022
	Sentence or Order	04.04.2022
	Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused	04.04.2022
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. P.Gopala Krishnan and C.Rajesh Kanna

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

 

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,  Monday, the 4^th day of  April, 2022.

2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. g’;Fdp jp’;fs; 21Mk; ehs; jp’;fl;fpHik

JUDGMENT IN  SESSIONS CASE No: 222/2018

(CNR NO. TNCH01-006835-2018)

The Inspector of  Police, K-11, CMBT  Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.

(Crime No.951/2016)    … Complainant.

– Vs. –

Aravind Kumar, M/A. 32/2016,

S/o. Sundaramurthy,

No.7/2, West KVR Nagar,

Thirupur District.                                                                                   … Accused.

This Sessions case is taken on file on 28.06.2018 and came up on

25.03.2022 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. P.Gopala

Krishnan and C.Rajesh Kanna, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the

….2.

arguments on both sides and perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered  the following:

JUDGMENT

Final Report:

1. The Inspector of Police, K-11, CMBT Police Station,

Koyambedu,  has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.951/2016, before the committal Court of the Learned Additional Mahalir Neethimandram, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 27.10.2016 at about 08.15 p.m. near the office of Election

Commission on the 100 Feet Road, Koyambedu, within the limit of K-11, CMBT Police Station, the accused wrongfully restrained the witness due to earlier dispute where the witness Selvi.Sivaranjani refused to accept his proposal for love, uttered filthy language saying “ஓதததத ததவவடயதமணதட ”  and with the intention to murder her inflicted injuries on her neck, face and hands with knife and caused simple injuries. Thereby, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307  IPC.

2. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the

offences by the Committal Court and on appearance of the accused, the copies of all the documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished by the Committal Court to the accused in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal

….3.

Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) free of cost. Thereafter, as the offence under Section 307 IPC alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned  Additional Mahalir

Neethimandram, Egmore, Chennai, vide Order dated 14.06.2018 in P.R.C. No.

04/2018, has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal

Sessions Judge, Chennai, and bound over the accused to appear before the

Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.

3.                  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 an offences which are exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307  IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty.  Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.

….4.

4. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charges against the accused, out of 15 witnesses cited, 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.16 and M.O.1 to M.O.3  marked on the side of the prosecution.
5. The facts set-out through the oral and documentary evidences produced on the side of prosecution in a nut-shell is as follows:-

5.1. P.W.7, Selvi. Sivaranjani is the victim and the injured witness in this case. She hails from Mannarkudi. She has studied MCA and was working in the Panoramic Group Company in the tele-calling division in the year 2016. The accused Tr.Aravind Kumar was working in the Admin section in the same company. In the course of their employment they got acquainted with each other. At one stage the accused proposed to marry her. P.W.7 disclosed her unwillingness. But he persistently tortured her. So, she lodged a complaint at Koyambedu Police Station. The accused was called and warned by the Police. As this issue was becoming bigger, P.W.7 resigned the job and took an employment in the accounts section at Aachi Masala Company at Anna Nagar West. Even thereafter the accused used to come there and caused trouble and continued to torture her. This came to be known by other staffs. P.W.7, unable to

….5.

continue with the job went back to her native place. She was taken ill and stayed their for 3 months.  In the year 2016, during Dipawali, she was informed that she is given bonus. In order to collect the same and to get another card for her lost ATM card from Thirumangalam State

Bank, on 25.10.2016 P.W.7 started from Mannarkudi and reached

Chennai on the next day morning.  She stayed in Sri Sai Ladies Hostel at MMDA Colony. On that day she went to Bank and for purchase at T.Nagar. On the date of occurrence the accused called her and told that she wanted to meet her. P.W.7 avoided it. But, he called from another number and told that he will just talk for 5 minutes. So,

P.W.7 asked him to come near a supermarket, where she was at about 6.45 p.m. making some purchases to return home. The accused came and stood outside without talking anything. Even a staff in the supermarket told her that the accused was starring at her and asked her,  does she wants help. P.W.7 requested him to get an AutoRickshaw to go to Koyambedu Bus Stand.

5.2. Then, P.W.7 got an Auto and went to Koyambedu and alighted near Jai Nagar Park, opposite to the Bus Stand. While she was moving, the accused came and told that he wanted to talk and asked her to stop. When she said she cannot, the accused told you can’t even stop to

….6.

talk with him and started to assault her with a knife. She sustained injuries on her left side neck, right upper lips, cheek and when she tried to block him, she sustained injuries on her both hands near ankle and fingers. Further, when the accused tried to stab on her stomach, he missed it. Some, public tired to prevent the accused. P.W.7 was bleeding and she got fainted it. Some one called 108 Ambulance and sent her to the Kilpauk Medical College Government Hospital (KMC).

5.3. P.W1/Tr.Balaji and P.W.2/Tr.Palani are Auto drivers. They were waiting for a ride near the Election Commission Office. Hearing the loud conversation between the accused and one girl, when they saw towards them, they witnessed the accused inflicted injuries with the knife to that girl and then the accused escape from that place. P.W.2 gave water and they also helped P.W.7 to go to the hospital in the Ambulance.

5.4. On 26.10.2016 at about 11.40 p.m.  Dr.Barghavi (not examined), was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer at KMC Hospital. She examined PW.7 Ms.Sivaranjani, who was brought by 108 Ambulance with the history of assault by a known person with knife at 08.15 p.m. on

….7.

27.10.2016 near Koyambedu Election Commission Office. P.W.6

Dr.Arun attended to P.W.7 when admitted as inpatient.

5.5. In the meantime P.W.9/Tr.Murali, then Sub-Inspector of Police at K.11, CMBT Police Station, received intimation from KMC hospital regarding the injured admitted in hospital. He went to the said hospital and recorded the complaint statement in Ex-P.6 given by P.W.7. Then, he returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.951/2016 under Section 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman

Act. Ex-P.7 is the First Information Report.  The same was sent to Court and he handed over the case file to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

5.6. P.W.10, Tr.Krishnakumar was then Inspector of Police, K.11, CMBT Police Station. He received the complaint and F.I.R. and took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence near

Election Commission Office and in the presence of

P.W.4./Tr.Samsutheen and witness Tr.Muthu Kumar inspected the scene of occurrence at 01.00 a.m. on 28.10.2016 and prepared the Observation-mahazar in Ex-P.1 and Rough-sketch in Ex-P.8. P.W.4

….8.

corroborated the evidence of P.W.10 regarding the preparation of observation mahazar.

5.7. Further P.W.10 (I.O.) examined the witnesses P.W.1/Tr.Balaji and

P.W.2/Tr.Palani and recorded their statements.

5.8. In the meantime P.W.3/Tr.Krishnamurthy, who is the uncle of the victim/P.W.7 received information about P.W.7 being admitted in the hospital. He went and saw P.W.7 at the hospital and came know about the incident.  He further collected the blood stained cloths of P.W.7 and handed over the same at the Police Station. P.W.10 (I.O.) on

28.10.2018 at about 09.00 a.m. received blood stained M.O.2 (Chudithar top) and M.O.3 (Thuppatta), which the victim was wearing at the time of occurrence, produced by P.W.3 under Form-95 in Ex-P.9.  He recorded that statement of P.W.3.

5.9. While a search was made for the accused, on the same day on 28.10.2016, information was received that the accused was available near Vallavan Hotel, 100 feet Road. P.W.10 went there and arrested the accused at 11.00 a.m.  The accused gave voluntary confession statement which was recorded by P.W.10 in the presence of P.W.5/Tr.Vellaimuthu and witness Tr.Velayutham. The accused

….9.

identified and produced a knife (M.O.1) from his possession as the weapon of assault. The admissible portion of the confession is marked as Ex-P.10, P.W.10 seized M.O.1 (blood stained knife) under the cover of a Seizure-Mahazar/Ex-P.11. Thereafter, the accused was sent for remand and the said confession and mahazar witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded.

5.10. The seized case properties M.Os. 1 to 3 were sent to Court and forwarded to the Government Forensic Science Department for examination through the jurisdictional Court. Ex-P.12 is the requisition for sending the M.Os. to forensic department. P.W.8,

Tr.Balakrishnan, then Police Constable working at K-11, CMBT

Police Station, took and handed over the material objects at Forensic Science Department.

5.11. Further, P.W.10 in continuation of his investigation examined Dr.Barghavi, who gave the accident register and P.W.6/Dr.Arun, who gave treatment to P.W.7 and issued the wound certificate.

5.12. P.W.6, Dr.Arun, on 27.10.2016 at about 11.40 p.m., examined the victim/P.W.7 who was admitted at inpatient at KMC Hospital. He treated the injured. Inspite of medical advise the victim absconded

….10.

from the hospital, Based on his examination he gave the wound certificate in Ex-P.4 with the opinion that the injuries are simple injuries in nature. Ex-P.5 is the Accident-Register recorded by Dr.Bhargavi while examining the  injured at the causality.

5.13. Further P.W.10 examined the witness P.W.9/Tr.Murali and P.W.8/Tr.Balakrishnan and recorded their statements. As he then got transferred, he handed over the investigation to his successor.

5.14. P.W.11, Tr. Frank D.Ruban, Inspector of Police, succeeded P.W.10 at K11-CMBT Police Station and took up the case for investigation. He examined the witness already examined by P.W.10. As they reiterated the same version given before P.W.10, he didn’t record their further statements.

5.15. On 06.04.2016 P.W.11 examined Tr.Srinivasan, Deputy Director from Forensic Science Department regarding the Biological and Serology examination done on the material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.3. Ex-P.14 is the Biological Report stating that blood was detected in all the 3 items. Ex-P.15 is the serology report stating that the blood is of human origin, but the grouping test is inconclusive. After collecting the above evidence and materials P.W.11 completed his investigation

….11.

and laid a final report against the accused for the offences mentioned supra.

5.16. With the examination of P.W.1 to P.W.11 the prosecution closed its evidence.

Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and  his  defence:

6. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused were put to him and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During such examination, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances against him and stated his defence as below: “வழககதவறதகமத எனகதகமத எநதத சமதபநததமமத இலலதல. பபதயத

வழகதக.  நதனத            தவலலகதக வநததவரநதததனத.                 எனத                     மதம                  பபதயத                    தகஸத

தபதடதடவவடதடதததகளத. அ.சத.7 யததத எனதற எனகதக பததவயதத   .”   The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on his side and closed his defence evidence.

7. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for

determination is;

….12.

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under section 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC,  beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

  On the Point :

8. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and examined the oral and documentary evidence in detail.
9. W.7, Selvi.Sivaranjani is the injured victim in this case. She was working in the Panoramic Group Company in the tele-calling division in the year 2016. She has identified the accused as a co-staff in the Admin-Section and he got acquainted with her in the course of their employment. She has further deposed that the accused proposed for the marriage, which was not accepted by P.W.7.  She would further deposed that as the accused was persistently torturing, she left the job and took up a job in Aachi Masala Company at Anna Nagar West. Even thereafter, the accused was following and torturing her. Due to which, she went to her native place and stayed for 3 months as she was suffering from jaundice.  She would state that she was informed about the bonus sanctioned to her by her employer and that she has come down to Chennai on 26.10.2016 morning to collect the same. The

….13.

occurrence has taken place on 27.10.2016. On that day the accused has contacted P.W.7 and wanted to speak with her. At first she avoided. But, when the accused insisted to talk for 5 minutes, P.W.7 has deposed that she asked him to come to a supermarket where she was making purchase at about 6.45 p.m. But, the accused came and stood outside without talking her. P.W.7 had apprehended some this fishy, So, she with a help of a staff from the super market took a Auto-Rickshaw and alighted near Jai Nagar Park to go and board a bus at Koyambedu Bus Station. It is at that time the accused follow her and ask her stop. P.W.7 would categorically deposed that when she got down from the auto and proceeding towards bus stand, the accused asked her to stop. When she refused the accused said, “அபதபட நவனதன தபசகதகட மடயததத எனதற கறவ     கதததவதபதனதற பபதரளதலத எனதலன பவடதட ஆரமதபவதததததத    .” P.W.7 would clearly depose about the injuries inflicted by the accused with the knife on her left neck, right upper lip, her cheek, left hand near the angle and right hand near the angle and near the fingers. P.W.7 would also show the permanent scar mark sustained on her due to such injuries.

10. The evidence of P.W.7 regarding the accused inflicting injuries to her is clearly and cogently corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were the chance witnesses present at the time of occurrence at that place. They are auto drivers who are waiting for a ride drive near the place of occurrence. So, there

….14.

presence cannot be doubtful. They, clearly deposed that they saw the accused and a girl talking and suddenly the girl shouted and that the accused inflicted the injuries with knife. They help to send the injured to hospital in an Ambulance.

11. The Medical evidence through P.W.6/Dr.Arun would establish that P.W.7 was brought to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital with the history of assault by one known person with the knife. The fact that P.W.7 was sent to the hospital in 108 Ambulance is further corroborated by the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7. The medical evidence in Ex-P.4 and Ex-P.5 would go corroborate and prove the oral testimony of P.W.7 regarding the injuries sustained by her in the occurrence. The injuries are simple in nature.
12. Based on the above materials, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution is clear, cogent and consistent to prove the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that minor contradiction and inconsistency cannot be avoided and that there is no material contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution case to disbelieve the same. Further the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that after receiving intimation from the hospital, police have recorded the complaint statement and the FIR is registered without any delay and the same is also reached Court on the same date of its registration. It is further submitted that the weapon used by the

….15.

accused to commit the offence is also recovered based on the confession given by accused. It is further submitted that the blood stained knife and blood stained dresses were sent for chemical analysis and proved to contain human blood. Hence, it is submitted that from the above materials, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

13. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused would

vehemently refute the contentions on the side of the prosecution and argued that there is serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the Complaint in Ex-P.6. He submitted that P.W.1 would say that soon after the occurrence, the victim gave a statement to police and affixed her signature. So, the first complaint is suppressed and a subsequent complaint statement is produced as Ex-P.6. Further, it is submitted that in complaint/Ex-P.6, the thumb impression of P.W.7 is obtained on the bottom of the page and there is gap between the end of the contents and the thumb impression. He submitted that the witnesses would admit that such thumb impression will be taken in blank paper only. So, the Learned counsel for the accused raised suspicion on the truthfulness of the complaint in Ex-P.6. Further he submitted that the F.I.R. has reached Court on 9.00 p.m. after delay,  which would caused doubt upon the prosecution case.

14. Further the Learned counsel for the accused would contend that the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence. He submitted that the

….16.

place of occurrence near the Election Commission Office is not possible since the victim P.W.7 has come in an auto from Vadapani to Anna Nagar direction on the 100 feet road, so, the bus stand is on the left side of the road in the same direction. He submitted that in order to go to the place of occurrence in the opposite direction  while coming from Vadapalani direction, two signals at South Asian Games Housing Complex and at  entrance of the  bus stand have to be crossed and a U-turn has to be taken to reach Election Commission office. So, the possibility of the victim going near election commission office is not possible. Hence, the place of occurrence is doubtful.

15. Further the learned Counsel for accused attacked the flaws and latches in the investigation that would cause doubt. He submitted that the CCTV camera footage near the place of occurrence in the police signals and nearby places is not produced to prove the occurrence. P.W.7 says she had informed her friend one Padmanaban, to the come to place of occurrence as she was apprehending such incident and that he came and took her to the hospital, who is not examined as a witness. Further P.W.7 has absconded from the hospital on the intervening night without taking further treatment. Further, the knife is not identified by P.W.7 and submitted that in the FSL report blood grouping is inconclusive. Therefore he submitted that from the above latches, the

….17.

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. Upon considering the above rival contentions, the Learned counsel for the accused raised suspicion on the complaint in Ex-P.1 produced by the prosecution is doubtful as it is a second complaint. No doubt P.W.1, the eye witness would state that the Police came to the place of occurrence and examined the victim, it was written down and the victim affixed her signature. But, the version is not corroborated by P.W.2 and the Victim/P.W.7. P.W.2, another eye witness would state that before the Police came she was taken in the Ambulance. So, P.W.1 would have given such version based on some

misconception of facts. P.W.7, the injured victim has clearly stated that after she went to the hospital, the Police came there and took her complaint statement and she affixed her right hand thumb impression, because of her injuries sustained in the fingers she could not affix her signature. This version is clearly corroborated by P.W.9, Tr.Murali, S.I. of Police, who went to the hospital and recorded her statement. Further P.W.10, the Investigating Officer/Tr.Krishnakumar would categorically denied receiving a complaint at the place of occurrence. Considering the medical evidence and oral testimony of the witnesses, including the P.W.7/Victim, it is  prove that victim  has sustained injuries on her finger on both hands and was bleeding. It is quite improbable that she could have given a

….18.

complaint and affixed her signature at that place. The police who came to the place of occurrence may be the traffic police on duty nearby or the patrol police. But, that itself  cannot be taken that the  concern jurisdiction police have come to investigate the matter. The investigation commences only when an information about the commission of a cognizable offence is received by the concerned jurisdictional police. The occurrence is said to have been taken place at 08.15 p.m. near Election Commission Office. Immediately P.W.7 is taken to the hospital and she reached KMC Hospital at 9.30 p.m.. So, only after receiving the intimation from the hospital, P.W.9 has went there and received the complaint/Ex-P.6. So, the contention that the first complaint was given at the place of occurrence and the same is suppressed by the prosecution cannot be sustained.

17. Further, the Learned Counsel for the accused raised suspicion regarding the manner in which the thumb impression taken in Ex-P.6. Since P.W.7 has sustained injuries and underwent treatment in the finger and hands, the version that she couldn’t affix her signature can be believed. She says that she affixed her right hand thumb impression. It is written as left thumb impression in Ex-P.6. It may be due to oversight and in the tensed mind set she would have been undergoing at that time. So, it should due to some mistake. Further, the space found between the end of content of the complaint and the

….19.

thumb impression cannot be ground for raising doubt. It may be because while recording the complaint statement, P.W.9 (S.I.) would have written in down in a usual manner and taken the thumb impression. As P.W.7 sustained injuries in the finger, it would have been convenient to affix her thumb impression in that way. Further, P.W.7 would categorically state that she gave a complaint statement at the police station and affixed her thumb impression in a written paper and not in a blank paper. Further, the contents in the complaint statement in Ex-P.6 materially corroborate the oral testimony of P.W.7 and P.W.9. It is a trite law that a Complaint and FIR are not an encyclopedia. So, during investigation additional facts will come to light. Unless there is material contradiction or inconsistencies, the same cannot be doubted. Therefore, in the absence of any material contradiction or inconsistencies and in the absence of any evidence to show that there is embellishment and improvements in concocting a false complaint, the Complaint and FIR cannot be doubted.

18. Nextly, it is contended on the side of the accused that there is a delay in sending F.I.R. to Court. The F.I.R./Ex-P.7 is registered on 23.30 hours on 27.10.2016. It has reached the Court on the same day at 09.30 p.m. as per the endorsement made by the Learned Magistrate. In between, the accused has been arrest on 28.10.2016 at about 11.00 a.m and the F.I.R. is forwarded to the Court along with the accused after recording his confession statement. Therefore,

….20.

there is no material delay in sending the F.I.R. and it does not affect the prosecution case, when there are reliable evidence to prove the occurrence. Further, in a case of this nature, where the identity and dignity of a woman is involved, the prosecution has to be very careful that the right person is being prosecuted. P.W.7/Victim has clearly identified the accused as the person involved in the occurrence. She would also state that as media people tried to surround her in the hospital, so she went out of the hospital. The privacy of the victim cannot be allowed to be breached by any one. So, it order to avoid media coverage and her identity being exposed, she could have went out of the hospital. P.W.3, her uncle would deposed that P.W.7 was given further treatment in private hospital. Therefore, in the case is this nature, delay in  sending the FIR Court and the act of the victim absconding from the hospital cannot be taken against the prosecution.

19. Further, the learned counsel has raised doubt on the place of occurrence. But on careful examination of the evidence of P.W.7 and the observation-mahazar/Ex-P.1 and rough-sketch/Ex-P.8, it will show that the occurrence has taken place on the opposite side road of the CMBT bus terminus on the West-East direction road near Tamil Nadu Election Commission office. The Jai Nagar Park is adjacent to the Election Commissions office. The case is tried to be projected on the side of the accused during cross-examination of

….21.

P.W.7 and the Investigating Officer that the injured have come from Vadapalani to Anna Nagar direction in the East-West road, and if she comes in that direction, she have to go to the bus terminus on the same road by taking left. Therefore, there is no necessity for P.W.7 to go to the opposite side.

20. It is the case of P.W.7 that she came from Vadapalani to Anna Nagar direction and got down near Jai Nagar park opposite to the bus terminus. She would clearly state that during cross-examination “எனதலன எஙததக இறககதவவவடதடததத எனதறதலத பஜயதநகதத பஙதகதவவறதக மலனயவலத ஆடததடத பசடதடறதக அரகவலத இறகதகவவவடதடததத. நதனத வநததத அமவஞதசவகலர தரதட மலன எனதறதலத வலதலவனத தரதடதடலத வநதததனத  .” This would show that during the time P.W.7 has come to the 100 feet road from an interior road that joins 100 feet road on the West-East side of the road while coming from Amingikarai through Vallavan hotel. It is on the opposite side of the CMBT bus terminus. It is also further elicited that it was Dipawali time and that the Police stopped and asked her to alight there itself. P.W.7 would deposed that “தமபதவளவ ரஸத இரபதபததலத தபதலமஸத   இஙததக இறஙகத வ பகதளத எனதற    பசதனதனததலத எதவரத பறததத  வலத இறஙதகவ தபதவதறதகதக  இறஙகதவதனனத.” Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 clearly established that the auto in which she came has come on the road opposite to CMBT bus stand and she got down near the corner of Jai Nagar Park. Because she has come from an interior road on the opposite side and joined the 100 feet road, the auto drive has

….22.

brought and dropped her on the opposite side near Jai Nagar Park. So, it can be understood that the victim has not come on the usual road running from EastWest direction on the 100 feet road, but she has come on the opposite side on the road running West-East direction and got down on the road opposite to the CMBT bus stand and then to walk across the road to go to the bus stand.      ExP.1-Observation-mahazar and Ex-P.8-Rough-sketch would disclosed that  Jai Nagar Park is situated adjacent to the Election Commission Office. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 that she alighted near Jai Nagar Park corner and the occurrence took place when she was walking towards the bus stand would prove the place of occurrence is correct. Therefore, the contention on the side of the accused regarding the place of occurrence cannot be sustained.

21. One another contention on the side of the accused is regarding the arrest and recovery. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the evidence of P.W.7 that the accused was caught at the place of occurrence. But the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, the eye witnesses, is very clear that the accused escape from the spot. W.7, the injured witness has deposed that after she sustained bleeding injuries she fainted. Further, she would state that some one from public prevented the accused from further assaulting her. So, she would have mistakenly though that the accused had been caught by the public. But the real fact is proved from P.Ws.1 and 2, who would say that the accused ran away.

….23.

P.W.10, the Investigating Officer would clearly depose that the accused arrested based on the information that he was available near Vallavan Hotel and arrested him at 11.00 a.m. on the next day (28.10.2016).  The arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.1-knife is corroborated and proved by P.W.5, Tr.Vellamuthu, an independent witness who has deposed about the arrest of the accused and the recovery of M.O.1.

22. No doubt P.W.7 has not identified M.O.1. But, she would say

that it will a silver coat knife and as it is was night time she could not properly note the knife. It is reasonable that when such a sudden attack is made on P.W.7, being a woman she would got panicked and could not noted the knife properly. However, the fact that it is a silver coated knife tallies with M.O.1.

23. Furthermore, the seized M.O.1 was with blood stains. Along with the M.O.2 and M.O.3 the blood stained cloths of P.W.7, it is subjected to Forensic examination. The forensic reports in Ex-P.14 and Ex-P.15 would reveal that human blood was detected in all the items. However the grouping could not be ascertained as the test was inconclusive. The presence of human blood in the knife recovered from the accused would further strengthen the prosecution case.
24. The learned Counsel for accused has raised doubt on the prosecution case as the CCTV footage were not produced. First of all there is

….24.

overwhelming testimony of the eye-witnesses to prove the occurrence and the identity of the accused. The victim herself has clearly identified the accused and the motive for him to commit the offence. Merely putting some questions during cross-examination that there are CCTV cameras in the signal points and other places are alone not sufficient to prove that the occurrence have been captured in the CCTV footage. There is no evidence that place of occurrence in front of Election Commission  Office was covered under CCTV surveillance. So, the non production of CCTV footage will not affect the prosecution case. Even in the absence of CCTV footage, there is other oral and medical evidence to prove the occurrence.

25. The motive for the occurrence is well established. Since, P.W.7/Victim has rejected the proposal for love and marriage made by the accused, he has ventured to do away victim for not acceding to his desire.
26. Therefore, from the above discussed evidence, fact and

circumstances of the case,  the contention of the side of the accused raising suspicion in the prosecution case and the latches and defects in the prosecution case do not serve the purpose to satisfy the conscious of this Court to discredit or disbelieve the prosecution case in any manner. There is reliable, clear and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the occurrence, the identity and the complicity of the accused in the occurrence. Hence, it is proved

….25.

by the prosecution that the accused waylaid the victim/P.W.7 and inflicted multiple injuries on her face, neck and hands with the intention to commit murder. In fact P.W.7 would clearly state that the accused tried to stab on her stomach, but he missed it. So, luck has come to her rescue and she escape a murderous attack. This very conduct of the accused would clearly proved his intention to cause murder. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the accused has attempted the commit murder of P.W.7/Victim beyond all reasonable doubt.

27. The accused is also charges under Section 294(b) for uttering obscene words in the public place and causing annoyance. But, there is no evidence put forth by P.W.7/Victim that the accused uttered any obscene words at the time of occurrence. Therefore, there is no evidence to attract the offence under Section 294(b) IPC.
28. Hence, this Court conclude that the prosecution has prove the guilt of the accused as charged under Section 341 and 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused under Section 294(b) IPC. Hence, the point for determination is answered accordingly.

….26.

29. Result – finding: In the result, the accused is found guilty as charged for the offences under Section 341 and 307 of IPC. Further, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 294(b) IPC, and the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) for the charge under Section 294(b) IPC.

Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed and typed by her in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4^th day of April, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq, Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,     Chennai.

….27.

S.C No. 222/2018 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Aravind Kumar) Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 04.04.2022 at 11.45 A.M.

30. 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;

இநதத வழகதகவறதகமத எனகதகமத சமதபநதத                                                                                  மத இலலத            ல.

31. 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 2.30 P.M. today.

Pronounced in open Court on this the 4^th  day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions Judge,  Mahalir Neethimandram,

Chennai.

….28.

ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 222/2018 – DATED: 04.04.2022 AT

2.30 P.M.

32. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the aggravating circumstances overpower the mitigating circumstances. The act of the accused is such that it has challenged the very social thinking and endeavor for women empowerment and success. The mitigating circumstances are that the accused could have remorse for his ghastly act and the possibility of reformation. But, weighing the same to the loss and suffering of the victim, it out weights the mitigating circumstances. The accused was not a young man. He was grown up man of 35 years and should have had the metal power to make a right and conscious decision before committing such act. If he had taken away the life of this young victim, who was budding spring in her life, her entire dream, carrier and further prospects would have been put to an end. Luckily she survived, but still due to the act of the accused, she has quit her job and gone back to her native place at Mannargudi. Such, occurrence will create apprehension in the mind of the entire women community and would be a bottle neck and obstruction toward women empowerment and upliftment. Such occurrence has to be serious condemned and dealt with iron fist to show that such occurrence will never be tolerated and that the result should have a

….29.

deterrent effect. Hence, considering the nature of the offence and the fact and circumstance of the case this Court views that the accused does not deserve any leniency.

33. Hence, the accused is accordingly convicted under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and sentenced as below;
    • under Section 341 IPC, to undergo ONE MONTH RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week;
    • under Section 307 IPC, to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months;
    • total fine Rs.10,500/-;
    • the period of sentence shall run concurrently; and
    • the period already undergone by the accused from 10.2016 to 30.11.2016 shall be set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:

34. The case properties M.O.1/blood stained knife, M.O.2/blood stained Chudithar Top and M.O.3/blood stained Thuppatta are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.

….30.

Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: –

35. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. The victim P.W.7 was young girl aged about 25 years and have come to Chennai from Mannargudi with great hope and prospect to have successful career. Her stepping stone to success and her career is jeopardizes by the vengeful act of the accused. Due to the occurrence she not only unable to continue her career, but also it has definitely caused a permanent scar and injured, not only physically, also in her mind and soul. It had been a tragedy in her life which cannot be easily erased out of her thoughts. Several sleepless nights would have been suffered by her due to his tragic incidents. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be just and proper and a fit case to compensate the victim  (P.W.7) towards the loss and injury suffered by her due to the offence committed against her and for her rehabilitation. Hence, this Court is inclined to pay compensation out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C., to the victim (P.W.7). Therefore, out of the total fine amount of Rs.10,500/-,  10,000/- is order to be paid as compensation to the victim P.W.7.
36. The compensation awarded out of the fine amount under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., will be only a pittance and will not be adequate to restitute the victim of the crime. Hence, this Court finds it fit to recommend for adequate

….31.

compensation under Section 357A(3) CrPC, to the District Legal Service Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award suitable compensation to the victim (P.W.7).

37. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.10,500/- paid by the accused,

Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. to the victim (P.W.7). The compensation amount to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there by any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.

38. 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 the Victim (P.W.7)  after due enquiry U/s 357A(1)

Cr.P.C, out of The Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

39. 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) CrPC out of The Tamil Nadu

….32.

Victim Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018.

//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4^thday of April, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,       Chennai.

List of Witnesses examined:

On the side of the prosecution:-

 

P.W.1	::	Tr. Balaji
P.W.2	::	Tr. Pazhani
P.W.3	::	Tr. Krishnamurthy
P.W.4	::	Tr.Samsutheen
P.W.5	::	Tr.Vellamuthu
P.W.6	::	Dr. Arun
P.W.7	::	Tmt.Sivaranjani (Injured)
P.W.8	::	Tr. Balakrishnan (Head Constable)
P.W.9	::	Tr. Murali (Sub­Inspector of Police)
P.W.10	::	Tr. S.Krishnakumar (Inspector of Police)
P.W.11	::	Frank D.Ruban (Inspector of Police)

On the side of the accused:  Nil

List of Exhibits Marked

….33.

On the side of the prosecution:

Exhibit	Date	Particulars
Ex-P. 1	28.10.2016	Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 2	28.10.2016	P.W.5’s signature in the admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P. 3	28.10.2016	P.W.5’s signature in the Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained knife)
Ex-P. 4	28.10.2016	Wound Certificate
Ex-P. 5	28.10.2016	Accident Register (Sl.No.1560687)
Ex-P.6	27.10.2016	P.W.7’s signature in the complaint statement
Ex-P.7	27.10.2016	First Information Report (C 7789513)
Ex-P.8	28.10.20­16	Rough Sketch
Ex-P.9	28.10.2016	Form ­ 95
Ex-P.10	28.10.2016	Admissible portion of the confession statement given by the accused
Ex-P.11		Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.12		Requisition Letter given by Inspector of Police
Ex-P.13	28.10.2016	Form ­ 95
Ex-P.14	12.04.2017	Biological Report (T.No.10616/2016 BIOL 618/2016)
Ex-P.15	27.09.2017	Serology Report  (T.No.421`8/2017 SER/120/2017)
Ex-P.16	11.04.2018	Section Alteration Report

On the side of accused:   NIL

….34.

List of Material Objects Marked:

On the side of Prosecution:

Exhibit No.	Particulars
M.O.1	Blood stained Knife-1
M.O.2	Blood stained Chudithar top-1
M.O.3	Blood stained  Thuppatta-1

On the side of the Accused:   Nil

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,

Sessions  Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram,                       Chennai.

// TRUE COPY //

 

Sessions  Judge,                                      Mahalir Neethimandram,         Chennai.

 

….35.