High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 11 MAD CK 0053

B. Govindarajan vs The Inspector of Police

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 November 2003 · Citation: (2003) 4 CTC 535

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sathasivam, J · M. Thanikachalam, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9906 of 2003 in Criminal A. No. 340 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 400 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner is the third accused in S.C.No. 47 of 2000 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.

2.

The allegation against the third accused is that he joined with other three accused in the crime, conspired to commit the murder of one

Velayuthaperumal and in pursuance of the conspiracy, at about 8.00 p.m. on 25.09.1999 they attacked the deceased and that the petitioner cut

him on the right hand and right shoulder, while the other accused inflicted other injuries.

3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the overt act attributed against the petitioner is, he cut the deceased and inflicted

injuries on the right wrist and right shoulder. He also points out that as per the evidence of Doctor, who was examined as PW4, both the said

injures found on the deceased viz., injury Nos. 6 and 8, are not grievous and are simple in nature.

4.

The Learned Senior Counsel also points out that as per the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries said to have been inflicted by the petitioner are not

fatal and directly responsible for the death. He also brought to our notice that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and he is a retired teacher and

suffering from heart ailment. In support of the above claim, the petitioner has produced the Medical Report from the Doctor concerned. Those

certificates are enclosed in the form of typed set of papers.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that PWs. 1 and 2 are eye witnesses. Considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly convicted them.

6.

We have considered the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the materials placed and also the

submissions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor.

7.

In the light of the materials, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. On payment of entire fine amount by the petitioner, the substantive

sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended and the petitioner is enlarged on bail on condition that he executers a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil and on further

condition that petitioner shall report before the said Court at 10.30 a.m. on the first working day of every month pending the appeal.