Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 12.06.2025 .08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.A(MD)No.250 of 2017 Aravind ... Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruparakundram Sub Division, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.195 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the judgment in S.C.No.60/2016 dated 03.07.2017 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Act Cases), Madurai and set aside the same and allow this criminal appeal. For Appellant : Mr.S.Jeyakumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgement of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Act cases), Madurai, dated 03.07.2017 in S.C.No.60 of 2016. 2. The appellant is the sole accused, who has been charged under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act' for brevity) and convicted and sentenced by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Act cases), Madurai, as under. Offence u/s Punishment Fine Default Sentence 324 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years Rs.1000/- Simple Imprisonment for one month 341 IPC Simple Imprisonment for one month Rs.500/- Simple Imprisonment for 7 days 294(b) IPC Nil Rs.500/- Simple Imprisonment for 7 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. is also ordered. 2 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 3.1.The case of the prosecution as per the records is that the defacto complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and the accused belongs to other community. On 09.08.2014 at about 16.30 hours, P.W.1 was carrying his 1½ of years old sister's daughter and proceeding towards his sister's house. At that time, the accused called him in a disrespectful manner. P.W.1 did not respond and the accused restrained him and abused him in filthy language by making community remarks also. The accused was having the habit of teasing P.W.1 on some earlier occasions and having this in mind, the accused attempted to murder P.W.1 and attacked him with aruval by saying to get lost and die. The attack inflicted an injury on the left shoulder of P.W.1. 3.2. On the complaint given by PW1, a case has been registered in Crime No.195 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. 3.3. After completing the legal mandate of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 read with Section 3(2)(v-a) of 3 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 SC/ST Act. When the accused was questioned, he denied his involvement and claimed to be tried. 3.4. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW11 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been produced. 3.5. After the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 307 IPC and found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 324 IPC read with Section 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST Act, 341 and 294(b) IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned supra. Aggrieved over that, the appellant / accused has preferred this appeal. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no independent witnesses were examined and the trial Court had solely relied on the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.3, who are close relatives of P.W.1. The contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the material evidence were not considered. During the trial, P.W.1 has stated that he sustained an injury on his head, but during the police enquiry, he had stated that he suffered 4 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 an injury only on his left shoulder. Furthermore, the weapon used in the occurrence has not been recovered and that was not taken seriously by the trial Court. The appellant also sustained injuries, but that was not properly considered by the trial Court. There is an improvement in the evidence of P.W.3, who stated for the first time during her chief examination that the accused had pelted the stones after the occurrence. None of the witnesses has stated that P.W.1 was unlawfully restrained by the appellant and that was admitted by P.W.10 also. Even before PW1 was admitted in the hospital, he had lodged a complaint, that was suppressed. 5.The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1 is an injured witness and he has deposed in his evidence clearly about the occurrence and the cross examination also did not bring out anything unnatural. The trial Judge has given due credence to the evidence of injured witness, eye witnesses and the medical evidence and has rightly convicted the accused. 6.P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that on 09.08.2014 at about 04.30 p.m., when he was carrying his sister's daughter and proceeding to his sister's house, the accused called him disrespectfully and that was objected by 5 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 him. The accused continued to abuse him and took an aruval and attacked him on the head and the attack inflicted an injury on his left shoulder. From the medical evidence of the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.9, it is seen that the doctor has recorded the following three injuries on the body of the injured:- 1.mtuJ jiyapd; gpd;gf;fk; ,lJ gFjpapy; rpije;j fhak; 2x1x0.5 nr.kP mstpy; ,Ue;jJ. 2.,lJ Njhs;gl;ilapy; rpuha;G fhak; 1x1/4 nr.kP mstpy; fhzg;gl;lJ 3.,lJ ifapd; NkNy 2x1/4 nr.kP mstpy; rpuha;G fhak; fhzg;gl;lJ. 7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the complaint there is no mention about the attack on the head and P.W.1 has not stated so during his statement given to the police, but has stated for the first time in his evidence. The Investigation Officer, who was examined as P.W.11 was not confronted specifically about the above aspects during his cross examination. When the evidence of P.W.1 matches with the evidence of doctor and the Wound Certificate given by the doctor, the omission to mention all the injuries in the complaint or during the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, will not make it false. Even the narration of the occurrence would 6 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 also show that there is every possibility that the attack would have been inflicted on his head as the accused intended to inflict the injury on his head with aruval. As P.W.1 was carrying the child, he could have moved away from causing any injury to the child and during such movement, it could have been possible to inflict an injury on his head and then on his shoulder. 8.The complaint was also written by P.W.4, who is the sister of P.W.1. Though it was on the instruction of P.W.1, who has signed the complaint, it is quite possible that the complaint could have been given at about 22.30 hours and it would have been possible for P.W.1, to suffer with pain. The doctor has stated that P.W.1 was examined at 06.20 p.m., which is immediately after the occurrence. He was admitted as an inpatient and he has taken further treatment. The doctor has also given his opinion that the injury was found on the body of P.W.1 and as detailed in the Wound Certificate. It could have been caused with the sharp weapon like aruval and the injury was certified by him as simple in nature. 9.Though P.W.1 has not given much description about the occurrence in his evidence, his evidence is sufficient enough to infer a strong opinion that he had been attacked by the accused with aruval and has caused 7 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 injury as spoken by him in his evidence.The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. Though he is not the direct eye-witness, he rushed to the spot on hearing the noise of P.W.1 and he saw the accused having aruval in his hand and P.W.1 was bleeding. His cross examination also did not falsify his evidence given in the chief examination. P.W3. and P.W4 are sisters of the injured and on hearing the noise of P.W.1 came out and saw P.W.1, who was holding the child in one hand and preventing the attack with his other hand. The child was hanging on his hand. The narration of P.W.3 on this aspect is very much natural about the occurrence and reliable. The cross examination of P.W3 also did not reveal anything adverse to demolish the evidence given in chief examination. 10.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 is not reliable as it has some exaggeration. Even without relying on the evidence of P.W.4, the evidences of P.W.1 corroborated with the evidence of the doctor and that itself is sufficient to convict the accused, as they are trust worthy. The evidence of the other witnesses is only supportive and more corroborative to strengthen of the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the weapon used for the occurrence has not been recovered by the Investigation Officer. The evidence of the Investigation Officer would show 8 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 that he has even filed the charge sheet in a proper manner and omission or flaw in the investigation cannot be allowed to affect the whole case of the prosecution. 11. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that he was abused and attacked by the accused with aruval. He did not state about unlawful restrainment. But the learned trial Judge proceeded to find the accused guilty for the offence under Section 341 IPC which in my opinion is not correct. 12. As discussed above, the evidence available on record on the side of the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused under Section 324 IPC for having caused a simple injury on P.W.1 by using arival. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge on this account. P.W.1 has also stated the obscene words used by the accused while abusing him which is inclusive of caste remarks. It has already been observed that the cross- examination of P.W.1 did not bring anything adverse to discredit his examination in chief and that the medical evidence also corroborates his evidence. It was well within the knowledge of the accused that P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste community. Ex.P.2, the Community Certificate was also produced to show that P.W.1 belong to the Scheduled Caste community. Even 9 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 though P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste community, the motive for attacking P.W.1 was not because he belongs to a particular community. It was suggested by the defense during the cross-examination of P.W.1 that whether the accused had an injury on his head. P.W.1 admitted that there was an injury. But, however, there is no explanation given by the prosecution about the caste remarks. So it was suggested to P.W.1 that P.W.1 had quarreled with the accused in order to eliminate his dog and during that time, the villagers also interfered and there was an altercation. So, the occurrence happened on 09.08.2014 at 4.30 p.m would be the offshoot of the above issue and it was not because P.W.1 belong to a particular community. In fact, no charge has been framed against the accused on the allegation that the accused used caste remarks against P.W.1. Under such circumstances, to convict the accused under Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act cannot be correct. 13. The evidence on record is clear that on the day of occurrence, P.W.1 was walking on the street by carrying the daughter of his sister. At that time, the occurrence had happened. P.W.1 did not say that he was unlawfully restrained by the accused. The trial court without any evidence proceeded to convict the accused under Section 341 IPC. Hence, the finding of the trial court against the accused for the offence under Section 341 IPC is not correct. 10 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 14. The evidence of P.W.1 also would make it clear that he was abused with obscene words by the accused and hence, it is right for the trial court to convict the accused for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC also. 15. So far as the punishment imposed by the trial court for the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, it is seen that the trial court sentenced him to undergo three years (R.I) along with fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month. There is no previous case against the accused and the accused was young at the time of the occurrence and the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act is not made out. In view of the same, some indulgence should be shown in the matter of punishment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Act Cases), Madurai, in S.C.No.60/2016 dated 03.07.2017 is modified as under: i) The finding of the trial court as to the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC is only confirmed. The accused attacked P.W.1 not because P.W.1 belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Hence, the finding and guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of 11 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 SC/ST Act is not made out and he is acquitted from the offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act. However, the sentence imposed against the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC is reduced to three months and the fine amount imposed by the trial court is confirmed. ii) So far as the finding and the fine amount imposed against the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC remains unaltered. iii) As the accused attacked on the way without restraining his movement, the offence under Section 341 IPC is not made out. The finding of guilt for the offence under Section 341 IPC is reversed and the accused is acquitted from the offence under Section 341 IPC. iv) It is further directed that the period of detention already undergone by the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. v) The trial court shall take steps to secure the accused to commit him to prison to serve out the period of sentence. .08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CP/CM 12 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 To 1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Act Cases), Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruparakundram Sub Division, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 13 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J. CM Pre-delivery JUDGMENT IN Crl.A.(MD)No.250 of 2017 .08.2025 14 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis