Madras High Court
Mariyappan vs State Through on 6 October, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
Mariyappan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Bodi Taluk Police Station,
Theni District.
(In Crime No.303 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records connected to the
judgment in S.C.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Court (Fast Track), Theni dated 27.10.2021 and set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
For Appellant : Dr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No.1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am )
Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUAN, J.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track), Theni, dated 27.10.2021 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused had previous enmity with PW4-son of the deceased Meenakshi, since he eve-teased the accused's brother's daughter-PW11. Therefore, with the intention to kill PW4, on 09.06.2015, the accused came to 2nd Street, 1st Ward of Bodinayakanur and intercepted PW4 and attacked him with sickle on the left side of his head. While the accused was attacking PW4, his mother/deceased intervened and in the melee, the accused caused cut injury on the deceased's left hand which resulted in amputation of left hand and the consequent death of the deceased. On the complaint given by the brother of the deceased PW1-Kaveriraja, Page No.2 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 the respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.303/2015 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 of IPC on 09.06.2015. Subsequently, the investigating officer investigated the case, laid charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.20/2015. After completing the formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track), Theni. Subsequently, charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 of IPC.
3. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 24 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW24 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13, besides 8 material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.8. On the side of the appellant/accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments on either side, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one Page No.3 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Setion 307 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charge under section 294(b) IPC. Challenging the said judgment and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW1 deposed in his cross examination that the respondent/police took custody of the appellant immediately after the occurrence, but the evidence of PW24-investigating officer shows that he arrested the appellant at about 03.45 p.m on 10.06.2015. Therefore, there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW24, thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the arrest and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 has also stated that PW4 explained as the appellant had sustained injury and taken treatment in the hospital, but the injuries sustained by the appellant was completely suppressed by the prosecution. The Page No.4 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 complaint on which the case was registered in Crime No.303/2015 on the file of the respondent/police was written by unknown person, but the scribe of the complaint was not examined as prosecution witness. Therefore, it creates a strong suspicion about the origin of the prosecution case. Even PW2 and PW10 during the cross examination deposed that PW4 went to the house of the appellant with the weapon. However, PW2 and PW10 did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and all the eye witnesses are only interested witnesses and no independent witness gave evidence against the appellant. There is a delay in filing the complaint and registration of FIR and sending the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate's Court. The medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.
6. He would further submit that even the place of occurrence also has not been established and there is a doubt whether the occurrence took place in the first street or second street, Vinobaji Colony, Bodinayakanur, Melachokkanathapuram. Further, he would submit that since PW4 eve-teased the brother's daughter of the Page No.5 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 appellant, the appellant questioned the same and PW4 tried to attack the appellant at that time, the deceased/mother of PW4 came to the occurrence place and while she was trying to prevent the same, the deceased sustained injury and in order to suppress the same, PW1 lodged the complaint against the appellant as if the appellant attacked PW4 with deadly weapon namely, sickle and when the mother of PW4 was attempting to prevent the same, the appellant also attacked deceased. Therefore, she sustained injury and she succumbed to injury. Further, the prosecution has not explained the injury sustained by the appellant. The prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant and the trial Court failed to consider the contradictions which are material contradictions would go to the root of the case of the prosecution and even the medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the trial Court ought to have extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Even Exs.P6 and P7-wound certificates of the appellant and PW4 clearly show that both the appellant and PW4 had sustained injuries which are head injuries and the prosecution suppressed the fact as to how the appellant sustained injuries. Further, PW4 is the aggressor who eve-teased the Page No.6 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 brother's daughter of the appellant and when the same was questioned by the appellant, PW4 attacked the appellant and the mother of PW4 came to prevent the same at that time, she sustained injury and therefore, the medical evidence itself shows that the prosecution has suppressed the material facts. However, the deceased sustained only a single injury which is in hand and the appellant had no intention to take away the life of the deceased and it is only the deceased who came to the place of occurrence and prevented the attack of PW4 and in the melee, she sustained injury. Therefore, the trial Court failed to consider the material facts, contradictions and medical evidence and has erroneously convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 307 IPC without any materials and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a previous enmity between the appellant and PW4 and even in the afternoon on the date of occurrence, the appellant went to the house of the deceased and warned PW4 and deceased and also uttered words that he will take away the life of PW4, since PW4 eve- teased PW11. Therefore, the prosecution has established the motive. Page No.7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 Further, PW1, PW2 and PW4 who are eye-witnesses, have clearly spoken about the occurrence and motive of the appellant who caused injury to PW4 and his mother who succumbed to cut injury. The medical evidence has also corroborated the same. Even the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clearly shows the intention of the appellant who went to the house of the deceased in the afternoon on the date of occurrence and warned PW4 and also used the word that he will kill PW4. Subsequently on the same day, about 08.45 p.m, he went once again with deadly weapon and attacked PW4 and his mother, fortunately PW4 survived with injury, but however his mother succumbed to cut injury. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly proved that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since PW4 eve-teased the brother's daughter of the appellant, the appellant warned and also uttered the word that he will take away the life of PW4 and subsequently waylaid PW4 and attacked him with deadly weapon by saying that ,j;njhL brj;J bjhiylh and also caused cut injury on the deceased saying that ePa[k; bjhiye;J ngho. Therefore, the intention of the appellant is very clear that he had chosen the vital part and attacked with deadly weapon. The medical evidence and the Page No.8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 forensic expert's report also confirm that the appellant caused injuries on PW4 and the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant for the charged offences. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both sides and perused the records.
9. The case of the prosecution is that PW4 who is the son of the deceased committed eve-teasing against PW11 who is the brother's daughter of the appellant. Therefore, there was enmity between the appellant and PW4. On 09.06.2015 at about 08.45 p.m in front of the house of one Suthanthiradas which located in the second street of first ward in Bodinayakanur, the accused intercepted PW4 and attacked on the head of PW4 and when the deceased/mother of PW4 came there and attempted to prevent it, the appellant allegedly caused cut injury on the deceased and the deceased succumbed to cut injury. On the complaint of PW1, the respondent registered the case and subsequently after investigation, laid charge sheet. Page No.9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
10. In order to substantiate the case on the side of the prosecution, PW1 was examined who is said to be an eye-witness. He has deposed that on 08.06.2015 at 08.00 a.m, while PW1, PW4 and mother and sisters were in the house, the appellant came there and there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and PW4 and the family members pacified the quarrel. On the next day on 09.06.2015 at about 03.30 p.m, the appellant again came to the house of the deceased and questioned PW4 as to why he made eve-teasing against his brother's daughter-PW11 and quarreled with him at that time also, the family members pacified the incident and sent the appellant. At that time, the appellant uttered word that at any cost he will take away the life of PW4 and left from the place. Thereafter, on the same day at 08.45 p.m when PW4 was going nearby one Suthanthiradas's house, the appellant waylaid PW4 and attacked PW4, at that time, PW1 and the deceased went to the occurrence place where the appellant attacked PW4 uttering the word, '',j;njhL brj;J bjhiye;J nghlh'' and when the deceased attempted to prevent the appellant, the appellant also caused cut injury on the head of the deceased uttering the word, ''ePa[k; bjhiye;J ngho''. Since the deceased prevented the said attack Page No.10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 through her left hand, she sustained cut injury in the hand and thereafter she fell down with unconscious and she was taken to hospital where the doctor informed that the deceased already died. Due to the assault by the appellant, PW4 also sustained head injury.
11. PW2, one of the eye-witnesses has corroborated the evidence of PW1 and PW4 and though they are all relatives, the fact remains that the deceased sustained cut injury due to that she died and PW4 also sustained head injury. Though the Doctor has stated that the injury sustained by PW4 is a simple injury, however, the ocular witnesses have stated that the appellant at the time of attacking PW4, uttered the word, '',j;njhL brj;J bjhiye;J nghlh'' then, when the mother of PW4 who is the deceased came and prevented the attack of the appellant, the appellant uttering the word, ''ePa[k; bjhiye;J ngho'' also attacked on the head of the deceased, but since she prevented the said attack through her left hand, she sustained cut injury in her hand and succumbed to the same. Even the medical evidence also shows that the deceased sustained cut injury on her left hand and PW4 also has clearly stated that the appellant alone caused injury to him and Page No.11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 also to his mother and he also explained how the appellant caused the injury to PW4 and his mother/deceased and when the nearby people gathered, the appellant tried to escape and he fell down and sustained injury. The defence taken by the appellant that only PW4 attacked the appellant at that time his mother came and prevented, in which, she sustained injury. PW11 who was the brother's daughter of the appellant was examined and she has not stated anything about it. However, she has stated that she was informed that the appellant caused the injury on PW4 and the deceased.
12. The main allegation as per the prosecution is that PW4 made eve-teasing on PW11 and after knowing the same, the appellant went to the house of the deceased on 08.06.2015 and questioned the same with PW4, in which, there was animosity between them and subsequently on the next day namely, 09.06.2015, 03.30 p.m., the appellant went to PW4's house and quarreled with PW4 and the family members pacified them. Thereafter on the same day evening at 08.45 p.m, when PW4 was near one Suthanthiradas's house, the appellant came with deadly weapons and caused injury on his head. However, it Page No.12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 is seen from the medical evidence that PW4 sustained only simple injury. However, he sustained injury in the forehead and therefore from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, it is clear that the appellant caused injuries on PW4 and the deceased. The appellant has taken the defence that when PW4 tried to attack the appellant, his mother/deceased came there and while preventing it, she sustained injury.
13. If PW4 made eve-teasing, in due course, the appellant should have given a complaint before the police against PW4 and set the law in motion and the law would take its due course. Instead, the appellant took the law in his own hands, took deadly weapon and attacked PW4. Since the evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly shows the intention of the appellant who attacked PW4 with deadly weapon and due to that he sustained head injury and considering the weapon used by the appellant and also the place chosen for causing injury which is a vital part, this Court is of the view that the intention of the appellant has been established by the prosecution. Therefore, the appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the appellant has established that even the motive itself is only against PW4 who eve- Page No.13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 teased PW11, due to which, the appellant had developed enmity and quarreled with PW4 and therefore, PW4 is the aggressor. Though the prosecution has proved that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC, considering the mitigating circumstances, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC, is modified into 7 years rigorous imprisonment.
14. As far as the charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the specific case of the prosecution is that due to enmity, the appellant attacked PW4, at that time, the deceased came and tried to prevent the same and in the melee, the appellant by uttering the word, ''ePa[k; bjhiye;J ngho'' attacked on the head of the deceased with deadly weapon and since the deceased prevented the said attack through her left hand, she sustained injury in the left hand and succumbed to the same. Therefore, the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, a reading of the materials shows that it was not the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased. Even according to the prosecution, the appellant attacked only PW4 Page No.14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022 since he eve-teased PW11 who is the appellant's brother's daughter. However, the deceased was unexpectedly came to that place and tried to prevent the said attack and therefore, she sustained injury. Whereas, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 shows that it was not accidentally the deceased sustained injury. When the deceased tried to prevent the attack made by the appellant, the appellant also uttering the word, ''ePa[k; bjhiye;J ngho'' attacked the deceased. Therefore, the intention of the appellant is also very clear to kill the deceased as well. However, the medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased sustained only one cut injury on her left forearm. Though at the very inception, it was not the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased, however, considering the injury sustained by the deceased which is a sole cut injury, this Court is of the view that the appellant only committed the offence due to sudden provocation which falls under Section 304(ii) IPC and therefore, considering the mitigating circumstances this Court finds that the appellant has not committed the offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas, he is found guilty of the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC and accordingly, the appellant is convicted under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Page No.15 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am ) Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the above modification.
[P.V, J.] [R.P, J.]
06.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Judge,
Additional District and Sessions Court,
(Fast Track), Theni.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Bodi Taluk Police Station,
Theni District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Section Officer
Criminal (Records) Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Page No.16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am )
Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
Crl.A(MD)No.221 of 2022
DATED : 06.10.2025
Page No.17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 11:27:44 am )