When Medical Evidence also does not support the case the conviction and sentence can be set aside

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 27^th April 2020

Balamurugan vs. State

To set aside the conviction judgement passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Chennai by filing a criminal appeal under section 374 of Cr.P.C.

Facts and Judgement:

• The appellant has been convicted under sections 341 and 307 of IPC (Attempt to Murder and Wrongful Restraint).Two weeks simple imprisonment for wrongful restraint and & 7 years rigorous imprisonment for Attempt to Murder and a fine amount of 100 rupees.
• It was alleged that Appellants attacked Jayaraj while he was riding bicycle and caused injury to him and later on Jayaraj was admitted to a hospital and lodged a complaint in Police station.
• The injuries of the victim were noted down and presented before the court. During the examination of the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any defence witness. After hearing of both sides and assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

Appellants Contention:

• The impugned conviction is highly pervasive and illegal and the trial Court convicted the appellants on highly interested and motivated evidence and no independent witness was examined.
• Further it was contended that in Complaint, the names of the accused persons and registered the F.I.R against the accused persons. The F.I.R registered at about 12.30 p.m. Whereas, Jayaraj went to the hospital and Doctor, registered the Accident Register, in which Jayaraj stated that he was assaulted by two un-known persons.
• At about 1.45 p.m. he went to the hospital, therefore, after registration the F.I.R, he went to the hospital, wherein he did not mention the name of the accused persons. Therefore, in the earliest document Accident Register, he has not mentioned the accused names and hereafter registered the F.I.R.
• The prosecution failed to mark the admitted signature in the confession statement and as such the entire recovery is not believable one. He also contended that the injuries sustained by Jayaraj are simple in nature and not supported the case of the prosecution.
• The conviction does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference from this Court. It was further contended that the evidence and the records clearly establish that Jayaraj sustained grievous injuries.
• As a result, the assault was committed by the accused with “Aruval (Weapon). Jayaraj, being injured witness, his evidence   has been rightly accepted by the Trial Court and reasons recorded by the Trial Court are sound and reasonable for conviction.
• Though Doctor had stated that the injuries sustained are simple in nature, the accused attacked Jayaraj only with intention to kill him. Therefore, it was prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

JUDGMENT:

Court Decided that the criminal appeal is allowed and the Judgment passed by District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai, is hereby set aside and the appellants  or accused acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.