Madras High Court
Ganesan vs The State on 23 June, 2022
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2021
Ganesan ... Appellant
-vs-
The State
rep.by Inspector of Police
Thirugokarnam Police Station
Pudukkottai
(Crime No.147/2016) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
against the Judgment dated 04.10.2021, in S.C.No.123 of 2016, on the file of
the Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ganapathisubramanian
for Mr.Rameshkumar.D.
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
_______________
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
This criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order,
dated 04.10.2021, in S.C.No.123 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Judge
(FAC), Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.
2. The Trial Court framed as many as four charges against the
appellant, as detailed below:
Charge Penal Provisions
1 498-A I.P.C.
2 294(b) I.P.C.
3 307 I.P.C. (2 counts)
4. 506(II) I.P.C.
3. By Judgment and Order, dated 04.10.2021, the Trial Court
acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 294(b) I.P.C., however,
convicted and sentenced him, for the other offences, as detailed below:-
Sentence of
Section of Law Fine amount
imprisonment
Rs.20,000/- in default
To undergo three (3)
to undergo simple
498-A I.P.C. years rigorous
imprisonment for one
imprisonment.
(1) year.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
Rs.30,000/- in default
To undergo
to undergo simple
307 I.P.C. (2 counts) imprisonment for
imprisonment for one
life.
(1) year.
To undergo three (3)
324 I.P.C. Nil
years imprisonment.
To undergo seven (7)
506(II) I.P.C. years rigorous Nil
imprisonment.
The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently and
the period of incarceration was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
4. The prosecution case is as under:
4.1. The appellant is the husband of Shanmugavalli
(P.W.1) and the couple has three daughters. The couple, after
marriage, was living in V.Kottaiyur Village, Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. The appellant was working in Muscat after
marriage and after he lost his employment there, he returned to
his native village and was loitering without any employment. He
was a chronic tippler and used to drink at the cost of his wife
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and harass her and the children for no
good cause. Valarmathi (P.W.2), mother of Shanmugavalli, was a
resident of Thirugokarnam Village in Pudukkottai District, where
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
she was running a petty shop abutting her house. The appellant's
mother (not examined) sympathized with her daughter-in-law,
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), and advised her to go to her natal home
with the children, so that she would not suffer the torture of the
appellant. On the advice of the appellant's mother, Shanmugavalli
(P.W.1) went to her natal home in Thirugokarnam Village with her
children sometime in the month of June, 2016. Thereafter, the
appellant is said to have come to the house of Valarmathi (P.W.2)
in Thirugokarnam Village armed with a stick and beaten his wife
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) for refusing to join him.
4.2. On 03.07.2016, around 02.00 p.m.,
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) packed lunch for her mother and took it to
the petty shop. While Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) was serving lunch for
her mother Valarmathi (P.W.2) in the petty shop, the appellant
came there armed with a billhook (M.O.1) in a two-wheeler (M.O.2)
bearing registration No.TN63 K1211. On seeing his wife
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and mother-in-law Valarmathi (P.W.2), the
appellant started attacking them indiscriminately. This attack was
witnessed by Aanandhan (P.W.3) and Pandurangan (P.W.4), who
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
also have their shops near to the petty shop of Valarmathi (P.W.2).
After the attack, the appellant fled in his two-wheeler (M.O.2) with
the weapon (M.O.1).
4.3. Prasath (P.W.6), an auto driver, and Chitra (P.W.
8), a neighbour, took Valarmathi (P.W.2) in the autorickshaw of
Prasath (P.W.6) to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai.
Similarly, Kesavan (P.W.7), an auto driver, and one Kamala (not
examined) took Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), in the autorickshaw of
Kesavan (P.W.7), to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai.
4.4. At the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai,
Dr.Suguna Alamelu (not examined) examined Valarmathi (P.W.2)
at 02.30 p.m. on 03.07.2016 and noted the following injuries in
the accident register (Ex.P8) as follows:
“O/E. 1) Laceration 5x3x2cm (R) cheek.
2) Cut injury 10x3x3cm (L) hip.
3) Multiple abrasions face.
4) Laceration 5x2x1cm (L) frontal region scalp.
5) Laceration 5x2x2cm (L) chest.
6) Laceration 3x2x1cm (L) shoulder.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
O/E. Patient conscious, oriented, afebrile.
CVS-S1S2(+), RS: NVBS heard.
P/A. Soft, Vitals stable.
Admin in (41) ward.”
4.5. Thereafter, Dr.Suguna Alamelu examined
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) at 02.55 p.m., and noted the following
injuries in the accident register (Ex.P9) as follows:
“O/E. 1) Laceration 5x2x2cm (L) forearm (Posterior aspect).
2) Laceration 10x4x4cm (L) abdomen.
O/E. Patient conscious, oriented, afebrile.
CVS-S1S2(+), RS: NVBS heard.
P/A. Soft, Vitals stable.
Admin in (41) ward.”
4.6. Since Dr.Suguna Alamelu had gone abroad, in
lieu of her Dr.Arunagiri (P.W.12) was examined to prove the copies
of the accident registers (Exs.P8 and P9).
4.7. On receiving intimation from the Government
Hospital, Pudukkottai, Swaminathan (P.W.14), Sub Inspector of
Police, Thirugokarnam Police Station, went to the Government
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
Hospital, Pudukkottai, where he recorded the statement of
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), which has been marked as Ex.P1, wherein
she has narrated the entire events sequentially. Based on the
statement of Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), he registered a case in
Thirugokarnam Police Station Crime No.147 of 2016, on
03.07.2016, at 03.00 p.m., for the offences under Sections 294(b),
324, 307 and 506(II) I.P.C., read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
4.8. Since the condition of Valarmathi (P.W.2) was
little critical, they decided to shift her to a private hospital, namely,
Preethi Hospitals, Madurai, where Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and
Valarmathi (P.W.2) were admitted as inpatients and were treated
by Dr.Chidambaram (P.W.11) and Dr.Somasekar (P.W.15). The
injury-cum-treatment certificate (Ex.P6) issued by Preethi
Hospitals for Valarmathi (P.W.2) reads as under:
“The injured person was first seen by the undersigned
at 10.30pm on the 03.07.2016 and the examination was
conducted at the same time at Preethi Hospitals (P) Ltd.,
Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
When the following injuries were found and of treatment
given:
Patient Conscious
X-Ray Skull and CT : Fracture of outer table of left
coronal suture
CT Chest : Fracture Manubrium sterum with vertical
split, Extensive pneumo-mediastinum with pneumo-
hemothorax seen left with lung contusion left.
Discharged on 18.07.2016
I am of the opinion that the injury is grevious in
nature.”
4.9. The injury-cum-treatment certificate (Ex.P7)
issued by Preethi Hospitals for Shanmugavalli (P.W.3) states that
the injuries suffered by her are simple in nature.
4.10. Investigation was taken over by Dineshkumar
(P.W.16), Inspector of Police and was completed by Tamilmaran
(P.W.17), Inspector of Police, Thirugokarnam Police Station. The
Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence, prepared an
observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P13). The
appellant was arrested by Dineshkumar (P.W.16) on 03.07.2016 at
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
06.00 p.m. and based on his confession statement, the admissible
portion of which has been marked as Ex.P3, the first Investigating
Officer seized the two-wheeler (M.O.2) and a bloodstained shirt
(M.O.3) that was worn by the appellant, under the cover of a
mahazar (Ex.P4). Thereafter, on the showing of the appellant, a
billhook (M.O.1) was seized under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P5).
4.11. After completing the investigation, Tamilmaran
(P.W.17) filed a final report in P.R.C.No.48 of 2016, before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, under Sections 498-A,
294(b), 307 and 506(II) I.P.C. against the appellant.
5. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was
committed to the Court of Session, Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.123 of 2016 and
was made over to the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, for trial.
6. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused, as detailed
in Paragraph No.2, supra. When questioned, the accused pleaded "not guilty".
To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 16
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
exhibits and 3 material objects. When the accused was questioned under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him, he pleaded “not guilty”. No witness was
examined from the side of the accused nor any document was marked.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and
hearing either side, by Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2021, convicted and
sentenced the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.3 supra. Challenging the
above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
8. Heard Mr.A.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel,
appearing for Mr.D.Rameshkumar, learned counsel on record for the appellant
and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent.
9. The entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of the injured
witnesses Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2). Shanmugavalli
(P.W.1), in her evidence, has stated that she got married to the appellant six
years prior to the incident; she has three daughters through the appellant; her
husband (appellant) was working in Muscat; he lost his job there and came to
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
his parental home in V.Kottaiyur Village; her husband (appellant) was
addicted to liquor and under the influence of alcohol, he (appellant) used to
beat her (P.W.1) frequently demanding money from her (P.W.1); the appellant
used to ask her (P.W.1) to get money from her mother Valarmathi (P.W.2); the
appellant's mother was very sympathetic towards her (P.W.1) and she advised
her (P.W.1) to go to her parental home with her children and not suffer so
much at the hands of the appellant; accordingly, she (P.W.1) went with her
three children to Thirugokarnam Village, where her mother Valarmathi (P.W.2)
was running a petty shop adjacent to her house; three days prior to the
incident, the appellant came there and assaulted her (P.W.1) with a stick
asking her to come and join him; when she refused to join him, he left; again,
on 03.07.2016, around 02.00 p.m., when she (P.W.1) took lunch to her mother
Valarmathi (P.W.2) and was serving her (P.W.2) in the petty shop, the
appellant came with a billhook (M.O.1) and attacked both (P.Ws.1 and 2)
indiscriminately and fled in his two-wheeler (M.O.2); she (P.W.1) was carried to
the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, where she gave a statement (Ex.P1)
and thereafter, for better treatment, she (P.W.1) and her mother Valarmathi
(P.W.2) got admitted in Preethi Hospitals in Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
10. The evidence of Valarmathi (P.W.2) is also on the same lines.
The eyewitnesses Aanandhan (P.W.3) and Pandurangan (P.W.4) corroborated
the evidence of Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2). It may be
pertinent to state here that Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2)
were examined in chief on 25.09.2017, but, they were not cross-examined on
the same day. They were recalled and cross-examined on 26.08.2019, nearly
two years after they were examined in chief. In the cross-examination of these
injured witnesses, the defence was not able to make any serious dent. It was
suggested to them that when the appellant came to his mother-in-law's (P.W.
2's) house on the fateful day, he was assaulted by Parthiban (P.W.5), uncle of
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), with a billhook and that had mistakenly hit
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1). As regards Valarmathi (P.W.2), it was suggested to the
witness that in the confusion, she fell down and sustained injuries by the
glass pieces spread on the floor. It was further suggested that they threw
chilli powder on the appellant and attacked him. The fact that these two
witnesses, Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2) were injured due to
the attack of the appellant has been satisfactorily established through the
medical witness as both of them were immediately carried by the auto drivers,
Prasath (P.W.6) and Kesavan (P.W.7) to the Government Hospital,
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
Pudukkottai, wherefrom, they were shifted to Preethi Hospitals, Madurai. The
injuries suffered by Valarmathi (P.W.2) were indeed grievous in nature.
11. Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, submitted that the injury-cum-treatment certificates (Exs.P6
and P7) issued by Preethi Hospitals do not disclose the details of the injuries
that were suffered by Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2) and
therefore, it cannot be said that Valarmathi (P.W.2) would have suffered
grievous injuries as testified by Dr.Chidambaram (P.W.11) and Dr.Somasekar
(P.W.15).
12. We are unable to countenance this submission, because the
facts of the case show that the appellant has been continuously beating his
wife Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), on account of which, she had no other option, but
to go to her natal home with the children. The appellant came from
V.Kottaiyur Village in his motorcycle (M.O.2) armed with a billhook (M.O.1),
which indeed shows that he had the intention to get rid the victims. The
brutal nature of the attack mounted on the two hapless women in broad
daylight in the petty shop of Valarmathi (P.W.2), as testified by them, clearly
indicates that it was an attempt to murder and nothing short of it.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
Fortunately, by sheer luck, these two women, especially Valarmathi (P.W.2),
escaped death. There is no other motive for Shanmugavalli (P.W.1),
Valarmathi (P.W.2), Aanandhan (P.W.3) and Pandurangan (P.W.4) to falsely
implicate the appellant in this case. It is trite that the evidence of an injured
witness has to be kept at a higher pedestal as alluded to in the Supreme Court
Judgment in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC
259], wherein in Paragraph No.30, it is held as follows:
“30.The law on the point can be summarised to
the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is
accorded a special status in law. This is as a
consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is
an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his
actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely
implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.
Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection
of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein.”
13. Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, further contended that there is no evidence to sustain the
conviction for the offence under Section 506(II) I.P.C., as none of the witnesses
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
has stated anything about the criminal intimidation said to have been made
by the appellant.
14. The charges for the offence under Section 506(II) I.P.C., have
been framed for criminally intimidating Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), whereas the
evidence shows that the appellant intimidated the others, who came to rescue
the injured Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) and Valarmathi (P.W.2). Hence, there is
sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
15. As regards the other charges, namely, Sections 498-A, 307
(2 counts) and 324 I.P.C., we have no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt.
16. Coming to the question of sentence, Mr.P.Ganapathi
Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant
wanted his wife Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) to join him, but his mother-in-law
Valarmathi (P.W.2) appeared to be an obstacle and therefore, the appellant
targeted his mother-in-law Valarmathi (P.W.2) more than his wife
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1).
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
17. In our opinion, the appellant had come with the intention of
getting rid of both the mother Valarmathi (P.W.2) and her daughter
Shanmugavalli (P.W.1), but the evidence of Shanmugavalli (P.W.1) shows that
the appellant has been asking her to join him at V.Kottaiyur. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that
the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.,
could be reduced to twelve years rigorous imprisonment. Insofar as the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 324 I.P.C., they are liable to be confirmed. The appellant
is acquitted of the charge under Section 506(II) I.P.C.
In fine,
➢ This criminal appeal is partly allowed;
➢ The Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2021, in S.C.No.
123 of 2016, on the file of the Sessions Judge (FAC),
Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, is hereby modified;
➢ The conviction imposed on the appellant by the Trial
Court for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.,
(2 counts) is confirmed, but the sentence is reduced
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
from life imprionment to twelve (12) years rigorous
imprisonment. The fine amount therefor is confirmed.
➢ The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324 I.P.C. are
hereby confirmed.
➢ The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section
506(II) I.P.C.
➢ The sentences shall run concurrently.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.H., J.]
23.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
To:
1.The Sessions Judge (FAC),
Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirugokarnam Police Station,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2019
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
krk
Crl.A.(MD) No.482 of 2021
23.06.2022
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
