Madras High Court
Arumugam vs The State on 5 April, 2023
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 05.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.(MD)No.284 of 2010
1.Arumugam
2.Muthumurugan ... A1 and A2/ Appellants
vs.
The State, represented by
The Inspector of Police,
B12, Tallakulam Police Station,
Madurai Town. ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in S.C.No.191 of 2008 on the file of
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated 04.08.2010.
For Appellants : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order S.C.No.191 of
2008, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, dated
04.08.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2005 at about 07.00
p.m., when the injured along with his wife went for taking water in the
street pipe at Madurai Tallakulam Kanmoi West Street, both the accused
came there and the second accused caught hold the injured and the first
accused attacked him with knife on both side of his head. Therefore, he
sustained grievous injuries and immediately, his wife had taken him to
the hospital. The same was intimated to the respondent and after
recording the statement of the victim, the First Information Report has
been registered in Crime No.1571 of 2005, for the offence under Section
307 IPC r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent
police has filed final report and the same has been take cognizance by the
trial Court.
3.On the side of the respondent, 8 witnesses were examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and
marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.2. On the side of the accused,
no one was examined and no documents were marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
found the first appellant was guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo
Rigourous Imprisonment for 3 months; and the second appellant was
found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigourous Imprisonment
for 3 months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5.The appellant has raised grounds that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond any doubt and as such, the benefit of doubt
caused in favour of the appellants/accused. There are contradictions
between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 and as such, the trial
Court ought not to have believed their evidence. In fact, P.W.2 had
categorically admitted that she did not witness the occurrence. Therefore,
the evidence of P.W.1 alone is not sufficient to convict the appellants.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the respondent
would submit that in order to prove the charges, the prosecution had
examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The prosecution
has also produced two material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. P.W.1 is the
injured person and his wife was examined as P.W.2, who is the eye-
witness. The injuries also corroborated by the Doctor's deposition, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
was examined as P.W.6. On information received from the hospital, P.W.7
recorded the statement from the victim and registered an FIR. P.W.7, after
completion of investigation, filed a final report and the same has been
taken cognizance by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court had proved
its case beyond any doubt and it does not require any interference by this
Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
8.There was previous enmity between the injured and the accused
family in respect of drawing water. While that being so, on 30.11.2005,
when the injured and his wife were taking water from the street pipelines,
both the accused came there and attacked him with knife on the head of
the injured. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital by his
wife. Six injuries were noted and admitted as inpatient, the wound
certificate issued by P.W.6, which was marked as Ex.P.5. Therefore, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt. On perusal of
deposition, P.W.1 revealed that because of the previous enmity between
both the family members in respect of drawing water, both the accused
persons, had intention to do away the life of P.W.1, attacked him with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
knife on both side of his head. The injuries sustained by P.W.1 termed as
grievous one. The second accused caught hold of P.W.1 and the first
accused attacked him with knife on his head. It is also corroborated by
P.W.2, who is the wife of the injured. The injuries also corroborated by
P.W.6, who issued the wound certificate for the injuries sustained by P.W.
1. Therefore, the prosecution had proved its case beyond any doubt. In
fact, another eye witness was examined as P.W.3, who also deposed that
on the date of occurrence, at about 07.00 p.m., the accused persons
assaulted P.W.1 and ran away from the place of crime. Hence, the trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellants and this Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the order of conviction and sentence imposed by
the trial Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
05.04.2023
sji
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.284 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
sji
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
B12, Tallakulam Police Station,
Madurai Town.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.A.(MD)No.284 of 2010
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
