Madras High Court
Pitchaiya vs State Rep. By on 21 April, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.A.(MD)No.569 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A(MD)No.569 of 2023
Pitchaiya : Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Tenkasi Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
Cr.No.373 of 2013 : Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) CrPC to call for the records
relating to the judgment dated 17.07.2019 in SC.No.121 of 2016 on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Needhimandram, Tirunelveli and set
aside the conviction and sentence.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*****
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.569 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant / accused as against the
judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahila Needhimandram, Tirunelveli, in SC.No.121 of 2016 dated
17.07.2019.
2.The appellant was tried before the Mahila Court for the offence u/s.
452, 342, 326 and 392 r/w 397 IPC. The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial,
found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as follows:-
Section Punishment Fine amount Default
452 IPC 3 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
342 IPC 1 year rigorous Rs.500/- 1 month simple
imprisonment imprisonment
326 IPC 7 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
392 r/w 397 IPC 10 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
3.The prosecution case is that on 26.06.2013 at about 12.30 pm, the
accused went to the house of PW1 and asked for drinking water. When
PW1 went inside to get water, the accused criminally trespassed into the
house of PW1, snatched away her chain and when she protested, he
brutally attacked her. PW1 sustained grievous injury and she informed her
neighbour / PW2. On information from PW2, PW3 / victim's husband took
his wife [PW1] to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, along with his friend
PW4. The Doctor, who examined PW1, referred her for further treatment to
the Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli. However, PW1 was taken to a
private hospital of PW8, where she was provided treatment as an inpatient.
4.On the complaint of PW1, the respondent Police registered the case
in Crime No.373 of 2013 on 26.06.2013 at about 03.30 pm, conducted the
investigation and also filed the final report as against the accused. During
the trial, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, marked 14 documents
and also produced 8 material objects. In conclusion of the trial, the trial
Court has found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as
stated supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
5.Though the appellant was convicted by the trial Court on
17.07.2019, this appeal was filed only on 18.07.2023. When the application
filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence in Crl.MP(MD)No.10327
of 2023 came up for hearing on 28.03.2025, learned Counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant / accused has already undergone six
years imprisonment and therefore, insisted this Court to take up the main
appeal for final disposal. Considering this submission made by the
appellant's Counsel that the appellant has already undergone a period of
six years in prison, the Registry was directed to list the appeal for final
hearing.
6.Sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the appellant's
Counsel are as follows:-
6.1.PW1 and the accused were known to each other. PW1 and the
wife of the accused belong to the same village and they were also known to
each other. PW1 has borrowed money from the accused and in order to
evade the repayment, she has foisted this complaint with the injury
suffered by her while climbing the steps.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
6.2.The Doctor [PW7] submitted that all the injuries were only
abrasions and that can be seen from the documents Ex.P6 & P7. However,
the case has been projected that the injury suffered by the victim is a
grievous one, by getting a certificate from a private Doctor [PW8].
6.3.Excepting PW2, there is no other witness to the occurrence. PW2 is
also an interested witness.
6.4.Moreover, there are several contradictions between the evidence
of PW1 & PW2. PW1, in her evidence, has stated that it is PW2, who
informed her that somebody was waiting in the gate. She further stated that
PW2 on hearing the sound has come down from the upstairs, witnessed
PW1 and informed PW3. However, PW2's evidence is contra to the
evidence of PW1. PW2 has not witnessed the accused in the place of
occurrence. According to PW2, the victim [PW1], with injury, went to her
house and informed that somebody has caused the injuries. Only then,
PW2 called PW1's husband and informed about the incident. In the event, if
any such occurrence had actually taken place, as projected by PW1, then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
PW2 would have witnessed the occurrence, on hearing the alarm. The
evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy, based on the evidence of PW2.
6.5.The victim was said to be in a pool of blood. She was admitted by
her husband PW3 in the hospital. The respondent Police has not recovered
any blood stained cloth either from PW1 or from her husband, PW3, who
admitted her in the hospital.
6.6.There is a delay in FIR reaching the Court. The occurrence was on
26.06.2013 at about 12.30 pm. The complaint was registered on the same
day at about 03.30 pm. However, the FIR reached the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Tenkasi, only at about 09.30 pm.
6.7.The appellant is not a habitual offender and he is not having any
bad antecedents. On hearing the news of foisting the complaint as against
him, the appellant has consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide.
The evidence of PW12 / Inspector of Police would show that there was an
attempt by this appellant by consuming poison, for which, he was admitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
in the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, for treatment as inpatient for one
week.
6.8.The prosecution case has been exaggerated with some abrasion
injuries suffered by PW1, when she fell down from the steps.
Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.
7.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the victim
has suffered grievous injuries. From the evidence of PW8 / Doctor, it can
be seen that the injury suffered by the victim are grievous in nature. The
discharge summary has been marked as Ex.P9. The victim has suffered
grievous injury. The weapon / Aruval [MO6] was also recovered by the
investigation agency. The accused has also cut the hair of the victim. It was
also recovered from the place of occurrence in MO7. There is no delay in
reporting the incident. The victim has suffered grievous injury and it was
informed by PW2. On information, PW3 / victim's husband went to the
place of occurrence, took the victim in a taxi and admitted her in the
hospital. The complaint was lodged on the same day at about 03.30 pm.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
This delay between 12.30 pm and 03.30 pm is reasonable. The FIR has also
reached the Court on the same day at about 09.30 pm.
8.He further submitted that the accused has snatched away the
victim's chain. A portion of the chain was retained by the victim and that
was recovered from PW3. It was marked as MO1, through Ex.P10. The
accused was arrested on 07.07.2013 and the remaining portion of the jewel
was recovered from the accused in Ex.P4 & P5 in the presence of witness
PW6. The accused came to the place of occurrence in a TVS Motorcycle,
bearing reg.no.TN-76-K-5099. After the occurrence, the appellant has left
the vehicle and ran away. This vehicle was also recovered from the place of
occurrence. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution has proved the
case sufficiently through the witnesses and also through exhibits and
material objects. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial
Court and he prayed for dismissal.
9.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
10.According to the prosecution, the accused, on the premise of
asking water, criminally trespassed into the house of PW1, snatched away
her chain and when she protested, he brutally attacked her. In the protest, a
portion of the chain was retained by the victim, while the remaining
portion was snatched by the accused. The portion of jewel from the victim
was recovered from PW3 and marked as MO1. The remaining portion of
the jewel was recovered from the accused in Ex.P4 & P5 in the presence of
witness PW6.
11.In the incident, the victim [PW1] has suffered several injuries and
the Doctor [PW7] who initially attended the victim and issued the Accident
Register has noticed as many as 12 abrasion injuries, of which 8 injuries are
in and around the head and neck region. The factum of recovery of a
portion of jewel from the accused and the parts where the injuries were
inflicted, this Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved
its case, de hors the minor contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
12.That apart, the prosecution has recovered the accused's
motorcycle, bearing reg.no.TN-76-K-5099, from the place of occurrence. The
incident took place at about 12.30 pm. The complaint was lodged at about
03.30 pm. The FIR has also reached the Court on the same day at about
09.30 pm. This Court does not find any unreasonable delay either in
reporting the incident or the FIR in reaching the Court. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial Court's judgment in holding
the appellant / accused guilty of the offence charged.
13.Insofar as the punishment is concerned, the trial Court has
sentenced the appellant / accused to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence u/s.452 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment
for the offence u/s.342 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment for the
offence u/s.326 IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence
u/s.392 r/w 397 IPC. Apart from that, fine amount and default sentence
were also ordered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
14.Of these offences, Section 392 r/w 397 IPC deals with robbery and
attempt to cause death / grievous hurt and its punishment. The maximum
punishment period for the offence u/s.392 IPC is ten years [if the offence is
committed in a Highway between sunset and sunrise, it is fourteen years].
For the offence u/s.397 IPC, the minimum punishment is seven years. The
trial Court has ordered ten years imprisonment for this offence u/s.392 r/w
397 IPC.
15.As per the Accident Register [Ex.P6] and the evidence of the
Doctor [PW7], who initially attended the victim, the victim has sustained 12
abrasion injuries, of which the injuries sustained in left hand wrist and left
hand fingers are grievous injuries. Considering this nature of injuries, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed for the offence u/s.392
r/w 397 IPC as that of seven years rigorous imprisonment, instead of ten
years rigorous imprisonment. All other punishments, including the fine
amount and default sentence, ordered by the trial Court remains unaltered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
16.Accordingly, the following punishment is imposed on the
appellant / accused:-
Section Punishment Fine amount Default
452 IPC 3 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
342 IPC 1 year rigorous Rs.500/- 1 month simple
imprisonment imprisonment
326 IPC 7 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
392 r/w 397 IPC 7 years rigorous Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
17.As ordered by the trial Court, the sentences shall run concurrently.
The submission made by the appellant's Counsel that the appellant has
already undergone six years of imprisonment is recorded. The period of
imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 CrPC.
With the above modification, this criminal appeal stands partly
allowed.
Internet : Yes 21.04.2025
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Needhimandram,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
3.The Section Officer,
ER / VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 08:40:45 pm )
