Madras High Court
R.Iyyappan vs The State Rep. By on 17 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
R.Iyyappan ... Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Thittakudi Police Station,
Thittakudi, Cuddalore District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, to call for the
records pertaining to S.C.No.239 of 2016 (on the file of learned Mahila Court,
Cuddalore) and set aside the judgment, dated 01.08.2018 made in S.C.No.239
of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
On 13.08.2016, on receipt of information from the victim, Kannagi,
taking treatment as impatient in Thittakudi Government Hospital to the effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
that the victim, being a flower vendor, was travelling in a bike with one
Sampath on 13.08.2016 at about 7.30 P.M and the appellants waylaid them and
abused with sexually overtured unparliamentary words and when she tried to
run, by pulling her down, attacked her with knife on the nose, cheeks and neck.
On the strength of the said information, P.W.8, one Vembu, S.I of Police
registered a case in Crime No.188 of 2016 for the offence under Section 341,
294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and P.W.11, one Suthakar, Inspector of
Police took up the case for investigation and laid a Final Report, proposing the
appellant guilty of the said offences.
2. The same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.22 of 2016 by the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi and after appearance of the
accused and furnishing of copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, as per Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was taken on file as
Sessions Case No.239 of 2016. The Trial Court framed the charges under
Section 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Upon being questioned, the appellant
denied the charges and stood trial. The prosecution, thereafter, examined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
injured victim, Kannagi, as P.W.1; the rider of the bike, Sampath, as P.W.2;
independent witnesses, one Murugan, Surendiran, as P.Ws.3 and 4, who turned
hostile; one Karuppusamy, who was witness to the Mahazar, as P.W.5; one
Balakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer, as P.W.6; one Kejalakshmi, who
was witness to the confession statement, as P.W.7; one Vembu, Sub-Inspector
of Police, who registered the F.I.R, as P.W.8; one Dr.Chellaperumal, who
treated P.W.1, as P.W.9; one Dr.Girishkumar, who gave wound certificate and
opinion; and the investigating officer, Suthakar, Inspector of Police as P.W.10.
3. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint was marked as Ex.P-1, the
observation mahazar as Ex.P-2, the admitted portion of the confession
statement of the appellant, leading to recovery was marked as Ex.P-3, seizure
mahazar as Ex.P-4, First Information Report as Ex.P-5, the Accident Register
as Ex.P6, the case sheet and discharge summary of P.W.1 as Ex.P-7, rough
sketch as Ex.P-8. This apart, the prosecution also produced M.O.1, Knife;
M.O.2, the saree worn by the victim and M.O.3, X-Ray and C.D containing the
images. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record and
incriminating circumstances, the appellant denied the same as false.
Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court,
thereafter, proceeded to hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
the State and the learned Counsel for the accused and after appraising the
evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one week
and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo Simple Imprisonment of one week; for the offence under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period ten years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year; for
the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and ordered to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of one week; for the offence under Section 506(ii) of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of one year and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months;
for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harassment Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of two years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
4. Heard Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)for the
respondent.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that as per the case of
the prosecution, the occurrence happened in the middle of the road where
several other persons were passing by. However, in the instant case, apart from
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the victim and the co-traveller who have an
motive against the appellant, no other independent witnesses have spoken
against the appellant. There could have been a number of independent eye
witnesses to the incident, but, only two of them, namely P.Ws.3 and 4, were
sought to be examined, who have turned hostile which would go to show that
the entire case, as alleged by the prosecution, is unbelievable and there is an
element of doubt.
6. He would further submit that a perusal of the cross-examination of the
P.W.8, Doctor and the wound certificate, it would be clear that the injuries are
simple in nature. A perusal of Ex.P-7, the case sheet and discharge summary,
would verify the said fact and injured was discharged on the same day.
Therefore, in the absence of any serious injuries and only simple injuries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
having been inflicted on the victim, the Trial Court ought to have taken into
consideration of the same and totally ignored the said medical evidence on
record, while convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel would further submit that also there is
a grave doubt and contradiction in the evidence regarding the recovery of the
material object. As per the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer,
namely P.W.6, in whose presence confession statement has been made, the
recovery was made from the front yard of the house of the accused, while as per
the seizure mahazar, it is from the back yard of the house. Therefore, there is a
material contradiction regarding the recovery of the alleged knife, which is
used in the incident.
7. He would further submit that in this case, from the cross-examination
of P.W.1, it is seen she has admitted that she is going to get her daughter
married and she and P.W.2, both of them are related to each other and in the
cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the appellant has given a complaint
of getting her daughter married even before the age of 18 years and misusing
her. Therefore, it is clear that they have had motive as against the appellant.
When the defence has, by cross-examination, established that P.Ws.1 and 2 had
vengeance as against the appellant, it is dangerous to rely upon their evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
alone in the absence of any other corroborating material to convict the
appellant and therefore, he would pray that the appellant should be acquitted of
all the charges and the appeal should be allowed.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
submit that this is an offence against a woman. Admittedly, P.W.1, victim, had
an affair and was living together with the appellant for a short period and
thereafter, the relationship turned sore and she had left the appellant and
therefore, unable to fathom that P.W.1 was not under the control of the
appellant, he had a strong motive and hence attacked the victim. A perusal of
the type of injuries, which are mentioned by P.W.9, would categorically show
that the attack was deadly that too with a dangerous weapon i.e., knife, which is
also recovered and produced as M.O.1 and therefore, he would submit that the
Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the other offences. He would further
submit that in a case of this nature, P.W.1's evidence, which is stellar in nature
by itself is enough to convict the appellant. Over and above, P.W.1's evidence
is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, coupled with the medical evidence
on record and proper investigation done in the case by collecting the saree of
the victim and the other relevant materials coupled with the observation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
mahazar and the seizure mahazar, would categorically and clearly prove the
charges against the appellant and therefore, he would submit that there are no
merits in the appeal and appeal be dismissed.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the materials on record. A careful reading of the entire evidence on
record, it would be clear that there was a motive for the appellant against the
victim. After being in a relationship, the victim had moved on of the said
relationship and therefore, the appellant was angry with the victim. But,
however, it may be seen that the manner in which the occurrence happened,
that the appellant waylaid the victim, pulled her down from the back and made
the injuries on her nose and around the face, which clearly shows the
determination of appellant to injure the victim and to disfigure her because he
was angry that she had left the appellant. Therefore, considering the nature of
injuries and the relationship between the parties, mere using of the words that
@,dpnky; cd;id capnuhL tplkhl;nld;[email protected] by itself would not make
out an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but, the Court has
to take into account the overall circumstances and nature of injuries and place
of attack and manner of attack etc. If taken cumulatively along with the Ex.P-
7, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the injuries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
are simple in nature around the nose, cheeks and face and therefore, I am of the
view that in this case, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
is not made out. Since the petitioner has attacked the victim with knife, which
is recovered as M.O.1, the lesser offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code is made out. Accordingly, I modify the conviction of the Trial Court
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as one under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code.
10. As far as the other offences are concerned, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken
about the accused waylaying them and therefore, the offence under Section 341
of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the obscene words spoken by the
appellant in the public road would clearly make out the offence under Section
294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and the offence under Section 506(ii) of the
Indian Penal Code as well. The said conduct of the appellant would also come
within the definition of harassment and therefore, would amount to offence
under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
Therefore, in other respects, the findings of the conclusions of the Trial Court
are upheld.
11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the following
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
terms:-
(i) The conviction of the appellant by the Mahila Court, Cuddalore, by its
judgment, dated 01.08.2018 in S.C.No.239 of 2016 in respect of the offences
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and modified as to one
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code;
(ii) Considering the age of the accused, the background of the parties, the
relationship mentioned by the prosecution case itself, and overall circumstances
of the case, the accused is ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of two years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) The conviction and sentence in respect of the other offences are
maintained;
(iv) The sentences should run concurrently and the appellant is entitled to
set off the period already undergone;
(v) It is stated that the appellant is on bail. Therefore, a period four
weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is granted for the
appellant to surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the remaining period of
sentence.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
17.06.2022
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
grs
To
1. Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Thittakudi Police Station,
Thittakudi, Cuddalore District..
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
grs
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.618 of 2019
17.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
