Madras High Court
K.Kumar vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 18 August, 2025
Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017
K.Kumar
... A2/Appellant in Crl.A(MD) No.484 of 2017
Nagu @ Nagarathinam
... A1/Appellant in Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2017
Vs
1. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District.
(Crime No.269 of 2016).
2. The Inspector of Police,
Austinpatti Police Station,
Madurai District. (Cr.No.269 of 2016).
... Respondents in both appeals
Common Prayer: These Criminal Appeal Cases filed under Section 374
of Cr.P.C to call for records relating to the Judgment, dated 15.11.2017
made in Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional
District Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, Madurai District and set aside
the same and acquit the appellants by allowing the criminal appeals.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017
For Appellants : Ms. M.Kamalini
Legal-aid counsel
(In Crl.A(MD) No.484 of 2017)
Ms. A.Banumathy
(In Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2017)
For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned III Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 15.11.2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2017.
2.The appellants, accused 1 and 2, have been found guilty of the offences under Sections 341 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 323 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and they have been convicted and sentenced as follows:
● Section 341 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act: Each appellant is sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default they shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.
● Section 323 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act: Each appellant is sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 fine of Rs.1,000/- in default they shall undergo one month simple imprisonment.
● Section 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act: Each appellant is sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the accused belonged to some other community; on 22.05.2016, at about 05:00 PM., the two wheeler, ridden by the accused hit against the defacto complainant's son, Ajay; this resulted in a wordy quarrel between the first accused and the defacto complainant; with that motive, on 25.05.2016 at about 06:00 PM, when the defacto complainant/PW1 and PW2 were sitting together in a Wine shop and consuming alcohol, the accused came there with a common intention to attack them had unlawfully restrained them and abused them by making caste calling; in continuation to that the first accused had taken a seemakaruvelam stick and hit against PW1 on his back and left hand; when PW2, who accompanied PW1, attempted to prevent the attack made by the accused, A1 took an empty brandy bottle and attacked him on his head; thereafter, both the accused 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 attacked PW2 repeatedly with hands and legs; before leaving the place of occurrence, the accused threatened PW1 and PW2 stating that they would attack them again, if they cross their path.
4.On the complaint given by PW1, a case has been registered and investigation has been conducted. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 294(b), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 341 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 323 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 324 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the accused. As the accused denied their involvement, they were subjected to trial. At the conclusion of trial, both the accused were found guilty and convicted and sentenced as stated supra.
5.Aggrieved over that, the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals.
6.The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that no independent witness has been examined to support the case of prosecution; PW4, PW5, PW7, PW12 and PW14 have turned hostile; PW1 has stated in his evidence that both the occurrence and the wordy quarrel had taken place on the same day. But in the FIR it has been stated that the wordy quarrel had taken place on 22.05.2016, whereas, the 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 occurrence had taken place on 25.05.2016; PW1 has stated before the Doctor that 3 known male and 2 unknown male persons have attacked him; on the very same day, PW2 has stated to the Doctor that 4 unknown persons have attacked him; but in the Accident Register, Ex.P.3, it has been described only that 'assault by known person'; the Doctor, PW8, who treated the injured witnesses has stated in his cross examination that the body pain reported by PW1 could have been the pretension and the injuries sustained by PW2 could have been inflicted due to accident, when he was going in a two wheeler; the weapon used for the occurrence, ie., Karuvelamkambu was not recovered by the prosecution.
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police categorically submitted that the trial Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in a right perspective, convicted the accused and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and carefully perused the records.
9.The complaint has been given by PW1 with the allegation that on 22.05.2016 at about 5:00 PM, when the accused 1 and 2 were 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 riding their two wheeler and hit against his son. When PW1 confronted the accused and quarrelled with him, they went away. On 25.05.2016 at about 6:00 PM, PW1 and PW2 were in the wineshop, the accused came there and unlawfully restrained and abused them with caste remark and hit PW1 with Seemakaruvelam stick on his back and hand. When PW2 came for his rescue, he was also attacked by A1 with an empty brandy bottle on his head. The other three accused had prevented them from moving forward and attacked them with hands and legs and some strangers came there and pacified them and thereafter, also the accused had threatened PW1 and PW2 and went away.
10. However, in the evidence of PW1 he has stated that on the day of occurrence after purchasing wine, when he was about to leave from the Wine shop, the accused unlawfully restrained him and pushed him down and abused him with caste name and both the accused had attacked him with Karuvelam stick. When PW2 came to rescue PW1, A1 attacked him with empty brandy bottle on his head. A third person by name Pandi had pacified them.
11.In the evidence of PW1, he has stated that both the occurrences of wordy quarrel and the occurrence on which the FIR has 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 been given were taken place on 22.05.2016 itself. But he has given the complaint only on 25.05.2016.
12.So far as the attack made against PW1 is concerned, his evidence does not make any clarity about who has attacked him and how. However, in the complaint, there is a specific allegation that the first accused had beaten PW1 with a wooden stick. There is a contradiction between the complaint and his evidence in describing the person, who had attacked him and how.
13.So far as the attack made by the first accused against PW2, his evidence is clear and compatible with the complaint. PW2, who had accompanied PW1, who is another injured witness has stated in his evidence about the similar facts about the motive. He has stated in a generalised manner that the accused had attacked PW1 with Karuvelam stick and abused him with caste remarks. However, he has stated in his evidence that A1 attacked him with an empty brandy bottle over his head.
14.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is identical with regard to the attack made by A1 against PW2, though there is contradiction with regard to the attack made against PW1.
7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017
15.The Doctor, who has registered Accident Registers has been examined as PW8 and he has stated in his evidence that PW1 and PW2 told him that a certain number of known and unknown male persons came and attacked them. But such details are not seen in Ex.P3, Accident Register. It has been written in general that PW2 was assaulted by known persons. The Doctor has not clearly registered the Accident Register by bringing the relevant facts.
16.In the Accident Register of PW1, Ex.P.2, the Doctor has entered the details that PW1 had reported pain on his back, chest and left hand. Injuries found on the body of PW1, PW2 were found to be simple in nature. Even the injury suffered by PW2 has also been certified as simple in nature.
17.Since there are contradictions in describing the date of earlier occurrence by PW1 in his complaint and in the evidence, the trial Court thought it fit not to make a fuss about the description of date with regard to the earlier motive.
18.Even though the rest of the eyewitnesses have turned hostile, the evidence of PW1 and 2 cannot be rejected in toto for the very same reason that they are injured witnesses. So far as PW1's evidence is 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 concerned, his evidence lacks clarity about who had attacked him and how. Though he has stated those facts clearly in Ex.P1, complaint, such details were found missing in his evidence. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the Accident Registers.
19.PW2 has also corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all aspects and stated that he was attacked by A1 on his head. The evidence of injured witnesses cannot be rejected for the reason that they will not have any motive to implicate any person falsely. As the injured witness would have been the accused in close proximity, their evidence with regard to the involvement of the accused and the identity of the accused cannot be discredited. But there are certain omissions and confusions in the evidence of PW1, for which, benefit of doubt can be given to the accused.
20.The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the alleged weapon used for the occurrence has not been recovered. But the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents submitted that though the wooden stick was not recovered, bottle has been recovered. The recovery of weapon and blood-stained soil collected during the investigation would only add strength to the case of 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 prosecution along with the statement of witnesses, who have been injured in the occurrence. So any lapse on the part of prosecution to collect the materials diligently would risk the prosecution to loose the corroborative evidence. Not in all cases, failure to properly recover the weapon would defeat the case of prosecution.
21.There is no motive attributed against the Investigation Officer by the accused. Hence, the evidence of Investigation Officer can be accepted even though the persons, who stood as witnesses for preparing observation mahazar and recovery turned hostile.
22.As stated already, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 can be reliable, but their evidence makes out the evidence of causing injury only against A1 as against PW2. As the evidence on record are not found to be sufficient to prove the guilt against A2, the trial Court had not properly appreciated the same. I feel the finding of guilt of A2 in respect of causing hurt on PW1 can be set aside. Both the witnesses have not stated that A1 and A2 have common intention in attacking them.
23.It is not established by the prosecution that the accused had known the caste of PW1 and PW2 and attacked them only because 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 they belong to scheduled caste community. The prosecution case is clear that because of earlier quarrel, the occurrence had happened, not otherwise. In the absence of any material to show that A1 had caused hurt on PW1 and PW2 only because they belong to scheduled caste community, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act has not been proved.
24.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is clear about wrongful restrainment caused by both the accused. I feel finding of guilt by the trial Court against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 341 IPC can be confirmed. When larger offence under Section 324 IPC is proved as against A1 for having attacked PW2 with an empty brandy bottle, I feel finding of guilt against A1 for the offence under Section 324 IPC can be upheld.
25.As the prosecution has not proved that the first accused knowing very well that PW1 and PW2 belonged to scheduled caste community, the finding of guilt for the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act should also be set aside.
11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017
26.Though A1 found guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 324 IPC, I feel some indulgence needs to be given in the matter of punishment. A1 is not a habitual offender and there are no previous case is pending against A1, taking into consideration of the facts, some linience should be shown in the matter of punishment.
27.In the result, these appeals stand partly allowed in the following manner:
● For offence under Section 341 IPC:
The conviction imposed on A1 and A2 under Section 341 IPC is hereby confirmed; A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment.
● For offence under Section 324 IPC:
The conviction imposed on A1 under Section 324 IPC is hereby confirmed and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; ● For offence under Section 323 IPC:
The conviction and sentence imposed on A2 under Section 323 IPC are set aside and the fine amount, if any paid by him shall be refunded to him. ● For offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act:
The conviction and sentence imposed on A1 and A2 under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act are set aside. ● The sentence imposed on A1 shall run concurrently. ● The bail bond executed by the appellants if any, shall stand terminated and the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellants to serve the remaining sentence period if any.
18.08.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PNM 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 To
1.The III Additional District Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, Madurai District
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Austinpatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Cr.No.269 of 2016).
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5.The Section Officer, Criminal Record Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm ) Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.
PNM COMMON JUDGMENT IN Crl.A(MD)Nos.484 & 502 of 2017 18.08.2025 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 06:50:35 pm )