Madras High Court
Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 April, 2023
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
Ganesan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
(Crime No.26 of 2015). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call
for the records and set aside the Judgment and conviction passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track
Mahila Court), Thoothukudi in S.C.No.306 of 2015, dated
24.02.2016 and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment
and conviction passed in S.C.No.306 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila
Court), Thoothukudi, dated 24.02.2016.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2015 at
about 05.30 p.m., while the victim was sitting in her neighbour's
house and rolling beedies, the accused came there and asked her
whether she is supporting her brother and abused her in filthy
language, and he also pulled her hair, and he had also beaten on
her right cheek, and he strangulated her neck. While so, Muthuselvi
and Ponnammal caught hold of the accused. At that time, the victim
ran away. The accused had taken Aruval and followed her to cause
injury. He has also thrown Aruval on her. However, she ran away.
Immediately, she had gone to the hospital. On recording her
statement, F.I.R has been registered against the appellant in Crime
No.26 of 2015 on the file of the respondent for the offences under
Sections 294b, 323, 307 and 506(2) of I.P.C r/w under Section 4 of
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and also marked material
object M.O.1 and on the side of the respondent, no one was
examined and no documents were marked.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 307 of
I.P.C and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Woman Act and convicted him for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced him to
undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo two months Rigorous
Imprisonment and acquitted him for the offence under Section 307
of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that there was a delay in the lodgment of the complaint. P.W.
1 also suppressed the first complaint. Even according to the Doctor-
P.W.7, who treated P.W.1, deposed that there was a lacerated wound
on her neck. There was no cut injury or any other injury caused by
the appellant in order to attract the offence under Section 323 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
I.P.C. The appellant had no motive to do away with the life of P.W.1.
However, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence
under Section 323 of I.P.C., without even any injury sustained by
P.W.1.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
further submit that though one eyewitness was examined as P.W.3,
she had turned hostile and did not support the case of the
prosecution. The other witnesses, namely P.W.2 and P.W.4, are
interested witnesses since they are closely related to P.W.1.
Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken consideration of
those witnesses and though the F.I.R was registered on the next
date, it was reached the Court only after five days. There is
absolutely no explanation by the prosecution for the long delay in
reaching the Court.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1 categorically
deposed that she was strangulated by the accused, for which, she
sustained a lacerated wound on her neck. Though there were no
ingredients to attract the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., the
trial Court rightly found that the appellant is liable to be convicted
under Section 323 of I.P.C and accordingly convicted him. P.W.7,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
who had treated P.W.1, also deposed that P.W.1 sustained a
lacerated wound on her neck. Therefore, the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court do not warrant any interference
by this Court.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
9.In order to prove the charge under Section 307 of
I.P.C and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.9. The victim was examined as P.W.1. She deposed that two
months prior to the occurrence, there was a dispute between her
brother and the accused. In the said occurrence, the appellant
attacked him, for which P.W.1 lodged the complaint and went to the
Police Station along with her brother. Therefore, on 25.01.2015 at
about 05.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was doing work in the neighbour's
house, she was attacked by the appellant by pulling her hair. He
also strangulated her neck. When P.W.1 attempted to run away, the
appellant had thrown the sickle. Therefore, she went to the hospital.
In order to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution had
examined P.W.2. She also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.
Though P.W.3 one of the eyewitnesses turned hostile, other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
witnesses had spoken and proved the overt act of the appellant
herein. Though the respondent filed a final report for the offence
under Section 307 of I.P.C., the trial Court rightly convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.
However, P.W.1 sustained only a lacerated wound on her neck.
Immediately, she went to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. She
was brought by her mother to the Hospital. She stated that one
known person had attacked her with his hands and also sickle. P.W.7
found an injury on her neck about 6 X 0.5 cm and 3 X 0.5 cm and
two lacerated wounds. However, there was no fracture and no other
injury found on her. The said injuries were declared as simple in
nature. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded by P.W.8. On receipt of
the information from the Hospital on recording the statement of P.W.
1, P.W.8 registered the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2015 for the offences
under Sections 294b, 323, 307 and 506(2) of I.P.C r/w under
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman
Act. P.W.9 investigated the crime and filed a final report. Therefore,
the prosecution categorically proved the offence under Section 323
of I.P.C as against the appellant and this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the conviction ordered by the trial Court. However, the
appellant was so far incurred for more than two months, considering
the above facts and circumstances and also the nature of the injury
sustained by P.W.1, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
from one year to the period which was already undergone by the
appellant.
10.In view of the above, the conviction imposed as
against the appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section
323 of I.P.C., is hereby confirmed. Insofar as the sentence imposed
by the trial Court is hereby modified to the period which was already
undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is
partly allowed.
06.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Seidunganallur Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).No.95 of 2016
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
