Madras High Court
Veerasekar vs State Rep By on 30 April, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.146 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 29.11.2024
Pronounced On : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A.(MD)No.146 of 2020
1.Veerasekar
2.Muniyandi
3.Karnan @ Karunanithi ... Appellants
vs.
1.State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Salaigramam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.97 of 2016) ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and conviction dated
10.03.2020, by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC),Mahila Fast Track
Court, Sivagangai in S.C.No.23 of 2016 and acquit the appellants.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.146 of 2020
For Appellants :Mr.N.Anandakumar
For Respondent :Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
*****
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction
and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.23 of 2016
dated 10.03.2020, by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila
Fast Track Court, Sivagangai.
2.The accused in S.C.No.23 of 2016, on the file learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai District have
filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction
and sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated
10.03.2020 in S.C.No.23 of 2016, by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
Sl. Accused Offence Sentence of Imprisonment
N No. Punishable and fine
o under Section
1 A1 341 of IPC To undergo 1 month of
Simple Imprisonment
2 A1 294(b)of IPC To undergo 3 months of
simple imprisonment.
3 A1 324 of IPC To undergo 3 years of simple
imprisonment.
4 A1 506(ii) of IPC To undergo 2 years of simple
Imprisonment.
5 A1 3(1) of TNPPDL To undergo 4 years of
Act Rigorous Imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 6 months
Rigorous imprisonment.
6 A2 & A3 341 of IPC To undergo 1 month of
simple imprisonment.
7 A2 & A3 294(b) of IPC To undergo 3 months of
simple imprisonment.
8 A2 & A3 323 of IPC To undergo one year of
simple imprisonment.
9 A2 & A3 506(ii) of IPC To undergo 2 years of simple
imprisonment.
10 A2 & A3 3 (1) of To undergo 4 years of
TNPPDL Act Rigorous Imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each in default to undergo 6
months of rigorous
imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
3. On 19.08.2014 at about 09.50 p.m., while P.W.1 was
returning home in his TATA Maxic Car, near St.James Higher
Secondary School, Salaigramam main road, the appellants
stopped the car driver by PW1 and had broken the car windshield
of the car by abusing filthy languages and initimidated to harm
his life. When , P.W.1 was trying to escape from the said place, the
appellants were attacked him with aruval and wooden logs and
P.W.1 sustained injuries. Hence a case was registered in Crime
No.97 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of
IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, against the first appellant
and Section 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act, against the second and the third appellants. After
investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report before
the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Fast Track Court,
Sivagangai. The same was taken on file in S.C.No.23 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
4.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were
furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special
Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being
satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the
accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 341, 294(b),
323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, and
the same were read over and explained to them and on being
questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and
pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 10 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and one material object was marked as M.O.1.
6. The learned Trial Judge after completion of the
examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the
appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating
materials available against them in the prosecution evidence and
the appellants denied as false. The learned trial judge, after
considering the same, convicted the appellants as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
7.The learned counsel for the appellants made the
following submissions:
The court below failed to consider that specific plea that
there was strained relationship between the PW1 and 1st
Appellant , the false case was registered. PW1 is not a trustworthy
witness and he said to have caused fire to the one textile shop and
assaulted the Panchayat Shop with slipper. Even as per his case,
Rs.85,000/- was extorted by the appellants, but the same was
false. He also made the substantial improvement during the
course of the chief examination about the weapons. The
remaining eye witness PW1 to PW3 also have the number of
previous cases. Apart from that PW4 to PW6 were declared
hostile. Therefore he seeks acquittal.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the
following submissions:
PW1 to PW3 are the eye witness to the occurrence. They are
clearly deposed about the occurrence in cogent manner. PW4 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
PW6 were declared hostile and same is not to ground to disbelieve
the PW1 to PW3 evidence. When the portion of evidence of PW1
is believable, the conviction could be passed. Therefore there was
no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Trial Judge in
convicting the appellants. Hence he seeks to confirm the judgment
of the learned Trial Judge and confirm the conviction and sentence
of imprisonment.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record and also the precedents
relied upon by them.
10. The question in this case is whether the prosecution has
established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant and the Learned trial judge's conviction and sentence is
sustainable or not?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
11.According to the prosecution, the first appellant had
illegally taken river sand from “Suranam Village” by using his
tractor. Hence, P.W.1 gave a complaint against him. As a sequel,
his tractor was seized. The first appellant had incurred a sum of
Rs.40,000/- to recover his tractor. Hence, the first appellant
complained the same to the Village President, namely,
Karunanithi and convened a panchayat and advised P.W.1 to give
Rs.40,000/- to the first appellant. But, P.W.1, did not make any
payment. Ergo, the first appellant allegedly criminally intimidated
him. Therefore, P.W.1 gave another complaint to the police
department. Aggrieved by the act of PW1 repeatedly giving
complaint, the first appellant along with the other appellants
parked their tractor in front of his car with are intention to assault
him. When PW1 without stopping proceeded further on the road
and reached near St.James Higher Secondary School, they stopped
the car and criminally intimidated him by uttering obscene words
towards him and caused damages to his car and also caused
injuries. When he tired to escape from the scene of the occurrence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
they caused injuries and also took his amount of Rs.85,000/-. The
villagers came to his rescue and brought him to the police station.
12. According to P.W.1, there was strained relationship on
account of sending complaint against the first appellant.
According to P.W.1, the first appellant was involved in illegal
mining of river sand at “Suranam Village”. But, the learned
counsel would submit that there was no river in the said village
and a copy of the complaint allegedly sent to the office of the
Superintendent of Police, had not been marked and number of
criminal cases are pending against P.W.1 including a case setting
fire to a textile shop and assaulting a panchayat staff with slipper.
Therefore, his evidence lacks credibility. Normally, criminal
background is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of
witnesses. But the facts and circumstances of this case, attaches
significance in the process of appreciation of his evidence. He
allegedly stated that his amount of Rs.85,000/- was extorted by
the appellants. The investigating agency found that the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
allegation is false. During his examination before the Court, he
further improved his version relating to the weapon used by the
appellants. He introduced iron rod, aruval and also exaggerated
his version relating to assault upon him. But the said improved
version was not corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.2 and
another eye witness for the occurrence also had number of
previous cases. P.W.3 is the wife of one of the accused in the
above said textile fire case. P.W.4 to P.W.6 were declared hostile
and deposed that they had not seen the occurrence. Even though,
P.W.4 to P.W.6 deposed that A2 caused damages to the car of P.W.
1 they have not deposed about the assault on P.W.1. To prove the
damages to the car, no evidence was produced. The investigating
officer also admitted that he has not collected any broken glass
pieces of the car. He never produced any records to show the
ownership of the car. He never obtained the valuation certificate
from the competent Government valuer. There was no
investigation about the tractor. The investigating officer also
admitted that P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were also the co-accused in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
the textile shop fire case, which was registered against P.W.1.
Therefore, this Court finds there are serious infirmities in the
prosecution case. P.W.1 consistently improved his version from
stage by stage, namely, he intentionally made allegation of
extortion of Rs.85,000/- and the weapons used by the appellants
and damages to the car. This Court considered his criminal
antecedents and the strained relationship between the appellant
and holds that he lodged a motivated complaint against the
appellant. Further, the remaining witnesses are also co-accused in
the criminal case registered against P.W.1 and their evidence also
suffers from serious infirmities relating to the use of weapons and
the assault on P.W.1. Their evidence do not corroborate with each
other. The medical evidence also has not supported the allegation
of the assault made by the appellants. No material also was
produced to prove the damages to the car. Hence, in all aspects,
the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the
appellants and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed on the
following terms:
(i)the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed
against the first appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act, and against the appellants 2 & 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and
Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Fast Track Court, Sivagangai, vide judgment dated
10.03.2020, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted
from all the charges framed against them. The fine amount paid
by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith. The
appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they
are required in some other case.”
30.04.2025
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
To
1.The learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Fast Track Court,
Sivagangai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Salaigramam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
