Madras High Court
S.Suriyaprakash vs The State Represented By on 30 April, 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 05.12.2024
Pronounced on : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.382 of 2018
1.S.Suriyaprakash
2.Leojoice
3.Joel ... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam West Police Station,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.141 of 2013) ... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to
allow the above appeal and consequently set aside the impugned judgment dated
06.07.2018 made in S.C.No.69 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional
District Session Judge (Fast Track), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, forth
with.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
JUDGMENT
The appellants/Accused in S.C.No.69 of 2015 on the file of the learned
Additional District Session Judge (Fast Track), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur
District, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed
against them on 06.07.2018, under Sections 341, 323, 326 of IPC and also
Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property Damage and Loss Act.
2.The brief facts of the case as follows:
The defacto complainant was working as a Manager in the firm namely,
'Dr.Kanagasabapathi Naturals' and 'Green Trends'. The appellants herein were the
customers of the said Beauty Parlour. Due to previous motive between the parties
regarding causing disturbance to the other lady customers, on 05.04.2013, at
about 11.15 p.m, when the defacto complainant was proceeding towards his
house on his bike along with the collected amount of Rs.45,000/- from the above
said firm, the first appellant is said to have waylaid and attacked P.W.1 on his left
hand with an iron rod. Thereby, P.W.1 fell down and sustained fracture. The
second appellant is said to have attacked P.W.1 with an iron rod on the head and
the third appellant attacked P.W.1 on the face and back side with hands and
caused injuries. Further, they damaged the lap-top and snatched the collected
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
amount from him. Because of the alarm made by P.W.1, they escaped from the
scene of the occurrence. On hearing the same, one Saravanakumar, who was
working as a driver, and one Thenchamy, who was working as a watchman,
rushed there and informed the owner of the above said firm namely,
Nagulashkumari. Thereafter, they admitted P.W.1 in the Government Hospital,
Kumbakonam. Thereafter, shifted him to a private hospital, namely, Sugam
Hospital, as inpatient. After taking treatment from 05.04.2013 to 07.04.2013, he
was discharged on 07.04.2013. Therefore, the respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.141 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326 of
IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property Damage and Loss
Act against the appellants. Thereafter, P.W.10 conducted investigation and filed
the final report before the learned Additional District Session Judge (Fast Track),
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.69
of 2015. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their
appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the
necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty
and stood for trial.
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and
exhibited 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P16 and produced 3 material objects as
M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from
prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and
the case was posted for examination of the defence witnesses. On the side of the
appellants, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the first appellant/A1 for the offence under Sections 341 and
326 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property Damage and
Loss Act, and convicted the second appellant/A2 for the offence under Sections
341 and 324 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property
Damage and Loss Act, and convicted the third appellant/A3, for the offence
under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and sentenced the first appellant/A1 to
undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to undergo 3 months
Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
him to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of R.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Property Damage and Loss Act, and sentenced the second appellant/A2 to
undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence
under Sections 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of R.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in
default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property Damage and Loss Act, and
sentenced the third appellant/A3 to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment for
the offence under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months
Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 323 of IPC and the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. The learned trial Judge, on considering the oral and documentary
evidences, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as stated supra.
Aggrieved over the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
5.1. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a delay
in registration of the case. The evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness is
unbelievable, and the same was not corroborated by the medical evidence. The
case of the prosecution that the appellants demaged the vehicle of P.W.1 is not
proved in accordance with law.
5.2. He further submitted that in AR copy, P.W.1 stated that some unknown
persons attacked him. But, in the evidence before the Court below, he stated that
the appellants alone attacked him. There is no identification parrade in this
regard.
5.3. He further submitted that there are number of infirmities and
inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1 and the other remaining witnesses.
Therefore, he seeks acquittal for the appellants.
6.1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions and also
upon perusal of the evidence of the document and the impugned judgment
submitted that P.W.1 is the injured witness. His evidence is cogent and
trustworthy, and his case is supported by the medical evidence, and the other
6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
remaining evidence, and the circumstances of the case. Hence, the learned trial
Judge rightly believed the evidence of P.W.1 and passed the conviction against
the appellants under the above charged offences. Therefore, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
6.2. He further submitted that there was no delay in the registration of the
case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. After the occurrence,
P.W.1, the injured was admitted in the hospital as inpatient and thereafter, the
said complaint was made. The infirmities and inconsistencies is not a matter to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Court below.
7. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records
and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the appellants.
8. P.W.1, in his evidence, clearly deposed about the motive and the
subsequent assault on him on 05.04.2013. According to P.W.1, he was working
as Manager in the firm namely, 'Dr.Kanagasabapathi Naturals' and 'Green
Trends'. The appellants are the customers of the said Firm. One week prior to the
7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
occurrence, the appellants caused inconvience to the remaining customers. The
same was questioned by P.W.1 as a Manager of the said Firm. Therefore, they
have motive to attack him. In pursuance of the said motive, on the same day, they
intercepted P.W.1 and attacked him and caused injuries to him and also damaged
the lap-top. P.W.1 specifically stated that A1 assaulted him with an iron rod and
A2 assaulted him with an iron rod and also A3 assaulted him with hands on the
face and back side. The said evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the medical
evidence of the Doctor, P.W.9. Apart from that, his version is also corroborated
by the remaining evidence of the other witness namely, P.W.2.
9. Reliability of the injured/PW.1- witness:-
9.1 Before going into the correctness of findings of the both the Courts
below in accepting the evidence of P.W.1/injured witness, the following
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have to be borne in mind:
9.1(a) The Hon'ble Three Member Bench of the Supreme Court has held a
recent decision in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 355, which is as follows:
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to
be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated
8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time
and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there
are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence,
it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow
the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted
on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or
minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be
discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version
must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which
normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time
should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the
eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the
circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as
would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed
to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently
improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both
these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those
witnesses themselves or established by other evidence
tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the
veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the
value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although
in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on
its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put
forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the
prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the
probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into
account while assessing the value of the prosecution
evidence.
9.1(b).Jodhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 11 SCC 52
28
... for there is no rule of evidence that the testimony of the
interested witnesses is to be rejected solely because other
independent witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution
have turned hostile. 29.... the injured witness has been conferred
special status in law and the injury sustained by him is an
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence.
9.1(c) Baleshwar Matho and another Vs. State of Bihar
and another reported in 2017 3 SCC 152: 12. Here, PW 7 is also
an injured witness. When the eyewitness is also an injured
person, due credence to his version needs to be accorded. 29....
In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-
examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his
testimony, it should be relied upon.
(d) Balwan and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in
2014 13 SCC 560 16. It is trite law that the evidence of injured
witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in
law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the
witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and because the witness would not want to let the
actual assailant go unpunished.
9.2. In this case, P.W.1, in his evidence clearly deposed that the first
accused/A1 attacked him with an iron rod on left hand. The second accused/A2
attacked him with an iron rod on the head and the third accused/A3 attacked him
with hands on the face and back side. The above evidence of injured witness
corroborated with the medical evidence of, PW-9/doctor who clearly deposed
about the injuries and also deposed that they might have been caused by the
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
alleged weapons. Further PW-1 withstood the cross examination and nothing
could be elicited to discard his testimony and his evidence is cogent and
trustworthy and his evidence inspires the confidence of this Court.
9.3. This Court finds no major contradiction, inconsistency or any
infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1 to discredit his evidence. The Courts below
clearly analysed the evidence along with medical evidence and comes to the
conclusion that the appellants attacked with alleged weapon/ material objects
and hence, there is no perversity in the finding of the trial Court.
10. By applying the above said principle, this Court finds no infirmity in
the evidence of P.W.1. In his evidence, he clearly mentioned that he was
assaulted by the appellants and damage also was caused to his lap-top. In the
said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants. The further arguemnt of the learned counsel
for the appellants that there was a delay in registration of FIR is concerned,
according to P.W.1, he was admitted in the hospital as inpatient. Therefore, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution offered plausible
explanation and hence, this Court declines to accept the case of the appellants
that delay in registration of FIR creates doubt over the prosecution case.
12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
11. The further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no
damage was caused to the vehicle of P.W.1 is concerned, according to P.W.1,
when he was sitting on the vehicle, the appellants surmounded him and attacked
him. Therefore, he fell down from the vehicle. In the said circumstances, the
absence of damage to the vehicle is not a material to disbelieve the evidence of
P.W.1.
12. Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in
AR copy, P.W.1 stated that some unknown 6 persons attacked him and hence, the
evidence of P.W.1 is not believable. The said submission of the learned counsel
for the appellants is not accepted for the reason that there was a clear statement
for the attack by the three persons/appellants and P.W.1 also identified them
before the Court below. Further,during cross examination, he gave an
explanation that he was under stress at the time of administration and hence, he
was not aware about what he has stated before the Doctor, P.W.9. In the said
circumstances, the said entry can no way be used to reject the evidence of P.W.1,
the injured witness. In another way, the entry made in AR copy is not a ground to
acquit the appellants.
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
13.1. The Madras Medical Code (Vol.I) Section 10 Paragraph -622 gives
guidelines or instructions to the doctor as to how the columns in wound
certificate are to be filled up. Paragraph 622 (vi) reads:
“Medical Officer should ascertain and incorporate in
the certificate only the alleged cause as to the manner in which
the injuries were inflicted, the weapon used and the time”.
13.1.1. Therefore, it is settled principle that an entry in AR copy is only
confined as to how he received injury and the evidence of doctor who recorded
the statement in the accident registered copy can neither be used for
contradiction or nor for any other purpose.
13.2.The purpose of the Accident Register copy is clearly stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:
P. Babu v. State of A.P., (1994) 1 SCC 388 B. Bhadriah v. State of A.P., 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 262
6. .. It is a matter of common knowledge that 5. .. The casual way of filling up the column
such entry in the injury certificate does not in the medical certificate does not in any
necessarily amount to a statement. At that manner amount to recording a statement of
stage the doctor was required to fill up that the injured witness.
column in a normal manner and it was not the
duty of the doctor to enquire from the injured
patient about the actual assailants and that the
inquiry would be confined as to how he
received the injuries namely the weapons used
etc
14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
14. In all aspects, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
15. However, insofar as the third appellant/A3 is concerned, considering
the allegation against him that he assaulted P.W.1 on the face and back side only
with his hands and also considering the fact that he has no previous antecedent,
this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence for the offence under Section 323 of
IPC alone.
16. Insofar as the appellants 1 & 2/A1 & A2 are concerned, considering
the allegation against them, this Court is inclined to confirm the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
17. Accordingly, this criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the following
modification of sentence of imprisonment:-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellants 1 & 2/A1 & A2, by the Additional District Session
Judge (Fast Track), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in
S.C.No.69 of 2015 dated 06.07.2018, is hereby confirmed.
15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
ii) The conviction imposed against the appellant/A3
passed by the learned Additional District Session Judge (Fast
Track), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in S.C.No.69 of
2015 dated 06.07.2018 for the offence under Sections 341 and
323 of IPC is confirmed and sentence to undergo 1 month
Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC
is also hereby, confirmed and the sentence imposed against
him under Section 323 of IPC alone is reduced to 2 months
Rigorous Imprisonment from 6 months Rigorous
Imprisonment. The substantive sentence of imprisonment
shall run concurrently.
ii) The judgment of the Special Court in other aspects is
confirmed.
30.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
dss
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
To
1. The Additional District Session Judge (Fast Track), Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam West Police Station,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
dss
judgment made in
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:16 pm )
