Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 A. Prakash ... Appellant Versus The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem District, (Crime No.98 of 2022) ...Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.76 of 2022 dated 28.03.2023 on the file of the learned II -Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and allowing the appeal throughout by acquitting the appellant. For Appellant : Mr. B. Mohan For Respondent : Mr. S. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order passed in S.C.No.76 of 2022, dated 28.03.2023, on the file of the II- Additional District and Sessions Court at Salem, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as under :- (i) On 01.03.2022, at about 10:00 A.M., the appellant, who was working as an Office Assistant in the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Omalur, while coming to join the duty, entered into the Chambers of the Judicial Magistrate – IV, Salem and when the Magistrate was ready to go to the Court at 10:25 A.M., the appellant shouted at him with regard to his transfer. The Magistrate replied that the transfer order was not within his knowledge and it was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, the appellant with intention to murder him stabbed the Magistrate on the left side of the chest with a paper cutting knife. (ii) On complaint, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, after investigation, filed the charge sheet. The offence was taken cognizance in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 S.C.No.76 of 2022 on the file of the II- Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem. (iii) On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked. Besides that, the material objects of M.O.1 to M.O.3 were produced. On the side of the appellant, one Musthafa Advocate was examined as D.W.1. However, documentary evidence was adduced. (iv) On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC. The appellant had simply gone into the Magistrate's Chambers to enquire about his transfer. The so-called weapon used was merely a paper cutting knife, which would prove that the appellant had no intention to kill the Magistrate. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 There are contradictions in the prosecution's case, and no CCTV footage was recovered, though the CCTV camera is very much available on the outside of the Chambers, the same was claimed to not have been working at the relevant time, viz., 10:00 A.M to 12: 00 P.M. Therefore, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that in order to prove the charges, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. Though on the side of the appellant, D.W.1 was examined, he did not support the defence. The victim was examined as P.W.1. He categorically deposed that, after the occurrence, he was immediately taken to hospital. The medical evidence shows that the victim sustained a cut injury on the left side chest and a laceration of 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm. The doctor, who examined the victim was examined as P.W.11, and the extract of Accident Registrar issued by him was marked as Ex.P5. Though the injury sustained by the victim was declared as simple cut injury, the motive of the appellant stands proved and therefore the Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant and it does not call for any interference. Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 6. After considering the submissions and materials available on record, it is seen that the appellant had a grievance about his transfer and went to the Magistrate's Chambers and asked him why he was transferred from the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur to Judicial Magistrate IV, Salem. On 01.03.2022, when he came to the Judicial Magistrate Court IV, Salem, before the court session began, he entered into the Chambers and shouted at the Magistrate. The Magistrate replied that the transfer order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Even then, the appellant with the intention to murder the Magistrate, stabbed him with a paper cutting knife. Immediately, the Magistrate came out of the Chambers and shouted that the appellant was attempting to murder him. Thereafter, the appellant was caught hold by the Court staff and the victim was taken to the hospital, where the doctor found that the Magistrate sustained a simple cut injury of 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm. However, the appellant had taken the paper-cutting knife to murder the Magistrate/P.W.1. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 under Section 307 of IPC. 7. Further, the victim/Magistrate was examined as P.W.1 and he categorically deposed about the occurrence at length, however, nothing was elucidated by way of cross-examination to falsify the occurrence. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1 hereunder:- “ehd; jw;nghJ bjd;fhrp ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ePjpj;Jiw eLtuhf gzpg[upe;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; ,jw;F Kd;g[ nryk; ePjpj;Jiw eLtu; vz;/4 ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ePjpj;Jiw eLtuhf gzpg[upe;njd;/ M$u; vjpupia vdf;F bjupa[k;/ fle;j 01/03/2022k; njjpad;W fhiy 10/25 kzpf;F vd;Dila ePjpgjp miwapy; ePjpkd;w gzpfSf;F Maj;jkhfp bfhz;oUe;jnghJ XkYhu; tpiut[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Ue;J khWjyhfp te;j M$u; vjpup ePjpkd;w gzpapy; nrUtjw;fhd fojj;ij bfhLj;jhu;/ fojj;ij bfhLj;Jtpl;L vd;dplk; mtiu Vd; gzp khWjy; bra;fpwPu;fs; vd;W nfl;lhu;/ ehd; gzpkhWjy; khz;g[kpF CJM mk;kh cj;jut[ jhd; vd;W Twpndd;/ mjw;F https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 M$u; vjpup cd;id nghy; xU ePjpgjpia nghl;lhy; jhd; gzp khWjy; bra;a khl;lhu;fs; vd;W brhy;ypf;bfhz;L ,j;njhL rht[lh vd;W brhy;yp jd;Dila ngz;l; igapy; ,Ue;j fj;jpia vLj;J vd; be";ir nehf;fp Fj;jpdhu;/ ehd; gpd;dhy; js;spajhy; me;j fj;jp Fj;J vd; ,lJ be";rpy; gl;L ,uj;jf; fhakhdJ/ ehd; gpd;dhy; js;sp bry;yhky; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy; Mhkhf Fj;Jg;gl;L brj;JnghapUg;ngd;/////” 8. The appellant with intention to cause grievous hurt, has entered into the Chamber and has shouted at the Magistrate (victim). The evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the version of others witnesses. Though the other witnesses had not seen the occurrence, when P.W.1 came out from his Chambers, many witnesses had noticed that the victim had sustained injury on his left side chest. Though, the prosecution has proved the incident, it has failed to prove that the appellant had intention to murder P.W.1. Since the appellant had used only a paper cutting knife, which is used in the Court for the purpose of cutting paper and other work, it cannot be construed that the appellant had intention to murder the victim, but only to cause grievous https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 hurt, he has stabbed P.W.1. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307 of IPC. The charge under Section 326 IPC alone is clearly attracted against the appellant, in view of the fact that the appellant used only a paper cutting knife, which is used for the purpose of paper cutting and other works in the office. 9. In view of the above, the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is set aside, however, the appellant is convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentence is modified to one of 5 years rigorous imprisonment, and in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 26.06.2025 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No Index :Yes/No klt To https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 1.The II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatti Police Station, Salem District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. klt Crl.A.No.436 of 2023 26.06.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis