Madras High Court
Thangarasu vs State Rep By on 1 July, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023
Thangarasu ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Nallur Police Station,
Namakkal.
(Crime No.195 of 2014) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the judgement dated 21.04.2023 in
Crl.A.No.73 of 2022 on the file learned Special Court for Trial of case
registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal, confirming the conviction
and sentence made in the judgment dated 05.09.2022 in S.C.No.64 of
2016 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramathy.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*****
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.73 of 2022 by the learned Special Court for Trial of case registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal, confirming the judgement dated 05.09.2022 passed in S.C.No.64 of 2016 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramathy for the offence u/s 324 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2014 at about 08.00 a.m., when P.W.1/victim was doing her agricultural activities, she told the petitioner not to drive the tractor in the pathway situated near her land. Therefore, the petitioner abused the de-facto complainant and attacked her with Aruval, thereby she sustained six injuries on her head, ear and both hands. On the complaint, respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.194 of 2014 for the offence punishable u/s 294(b), 324 and 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramathy and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.64 of 2015. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined sixteen (16) witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked fourteen (14) documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and also produced Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 M.O.1. On the side of the petitioner/accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. After elaborate discussions, the trial court convicted the petitioner u/s 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 36 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to payment of fine, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2022 before the learned Special Court for Trial of case registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal and the learned Judge, vide judgment dated 21.04.2023 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramathy. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was full of contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to scene of crime and the distance between their house. The injured was examined as P.W.1 and her mother was examined as P.W.2. The son of the P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. Further, he submitted that when the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s 324 of IPC ought not to have sentenced him to the maximum period of sentence, since there was no fracture injury sustained by the victim. Though the Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 injury sustained by the victim declared as grievous in nature, the injuries are not fatal. No other independent witness was examined by the prosecution. All the witnessess are close relatives of the P.W.1. Further, weapon allegedly used by the accused also differes from P.W.1 and P.W.3. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 324 of IPC beyond any doubt. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is now aged about 64 years and has already undergone imprisonment for about one year. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured was examined as P.W.1. Though there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, immediately after hearing the noise of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence and saw the accused who abused and attacked the victim. After occurrence, the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode, there she was given first aid. The doctor, who did the first aid was examined as P.W.11. She recorded the accident register, which was marked as Ex.P.7, in which, P.W.1 categorically stated that she was assaulted by one known person by Koduval. Thereafter, she was referred to higher hospital for Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 further treatment. P.W.12 issued wound certificate and according to the wound certificate, out of the six injuries sustained by P.W.1, injuries 3 and 4 are grievous injuries. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the charge u/s 324 of IPC and the Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence u/s 324 of IPC and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sole accused in this case. Due to previous enmity with regard to pathway dispute between the petitioner's family and the injured/P.W.1 family, on 16.08.2014, while P.W.1 was doing her agricultural activities, she told the petitioner not to drive his tractor in the pathway. Therefore, the petitioner abused her in a filthy language and also attacked her with M.O.1. Hence, she sustained injuries on her head, ear, wrist and shoulder. Though there are minor contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, those are all not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since the victim was examined as Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 P.W.1 and she categorically deposed the specific overt act of the petitioner, which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not eye-witness to the occurrence, after hearing the screaming of P.W.1, they immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the petitioner with M.O.I. Immediately, the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode, where she was treated by P.W.11 and Accident Register was recorded, which was marked as Ex.P.6. A perusal of Ex.P.6 reveals that P.W.1 was attacked by one known person by using Koduval (bfhLths;). It is also corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.1 was referred to higher hospital for further treatment. P.W.13, who treated the P.W.1 issued the wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.9. She declared that out of the six injuries sustained by P.W.1, injuries 3 and 4 are grievous. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charge u/s 324 IPC beyond any doubt and the Trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner u/s 324 of IPC, which has been rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 324 of IPC. However, considering the age of the petitioner Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 and the relationship between the injured/P.W.1 and the petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Further, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the victim/P.W.1, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is directed to pay compensation to the victim/P.W.1.
7. Accordingly, the order of conviction imposed on the petitioner is hereby confirmed, however the sentence of imprisonment is modified from 36 months simple imprisonment to the period already undergone on condition that the petitioner shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) directly to the victim/P.W.1 and produce the acknowledgement before the respondent police on or before 04.08.2025. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall stand discharged. If the petitioner fails to comply the above condition imposed by this Court, the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court shall automatically stand revived and the respondent police is directed to secure the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 petitioner to undergo the remaining period of sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
01.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
NCC : Yes / No
sp
Page No.8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of case registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramathy.
3.The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Namakkal.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm ) Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sp Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2023 01.07.2025 Page No.10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 08:49:09 pm )