CRL RC/665/2022 of RAJIV GANDHI@PERUMAL Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 September 2026

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment dated 28.02.2020 in Crl.A.No.122

CRL RC No. 665 of 2022

of 2016 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.6179 of 2011 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of prior enmity on 31.07.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner had asked the defacto complainant to not to park his car in the place where they had parked. Since the defacto complainant did not remove the car, the petitioner along with two other accused had caused injury on the leg with a knife and thus committed the aforesaid offence. The trial Court believed the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 who are the eye witnesses and found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated; that the entries in the accident register marked as Ex.P13 would show that the victim had stated to the Doctor that ten persons attacked him; that the occurrence took place on 31.07.2011, the complaint was lodged on 01.08.2011 and that the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and hence the finding of guilt is erroneous and the judgments are liable to be set aside.

CRL RC No. 665 of 2022

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness and the other eye witnesses have not been discredited in any manner by the defence and there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage would submit that the petitioner aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence had undergone renal transplantation and that he is suffering from several medical ailments. He has produced medical records, which is not in dispute by the respondent.

6. Though there are entries in the accident register to indicate that ten people had attacked the defacto complainant/ P.W.1, it is seen that P.W.1 and other witnesses have been consistent with their version and have implicated the petitioner. Nothing has been elucidated in the cross examination to disbelieve their evidence.

7. This Court therefore is of the view that the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the medical condition of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed on the petitioner can be modified as follows:

(i) Sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Courts below is set aside.

CRL RC No. 665 of 2022

(ii) The petitioner is instead directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only], within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, to suffer three months simple imprisonment.

(iii) The defacto complainant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- out of the fine amount paid by the petitioner.

8. This criminal revision case is dismissed with the above modification in sentence. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To

1. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.917 / 2011)

CRL RC No. 665 of 2022

SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri CRL RC No. 665 of 2022 28-09-2026