Madras High Court
Jeyakumar vs The State Rep By on 30 April, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 22.01.2025
Pronounced On : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2020
Jeyakumar ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.163 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(1) of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram,
in S.C.No.93 of 2017, dated 04.02.2020, by allowing this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Anbarasu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned
order passed in S.C.No.93 of 2017 dated 04.02.2020, on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, and
acquit the appellant in connection with Crime No.163 of 2015, on the file
of the respondent police.
2.The accused in S.C.No.93 of 2017, on the file learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, had filed this
Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence
imposed on him by the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022, in S.C.No.
93 of 2017 :
Sl. Accused Offence Sentence of Imprisonment and
No No. Punishable under fine
Section
1 Sole 324 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous
Accused Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 1 month Simple
imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
2.1. According to the prosecution, the sister's husband of the defacto
complainant and the father of the appellant are brothers. There was a
civil dispute between family of the defacto complainant's sister's
husband and the father of the appellant. On 25.06.2015, at about 10.15
pm., burying the hatchat, when the mother of the appellant went to the
house of the defacto complainant's sister to see the new born child, who is
the grand-daughter of the defacto complainant's sister, the appellant
came there and scolded his mother. When the same was questioned by
the defacto complainant's sister, the appellant is said to have assaulted
her with a knife and stick over the right parietal region of the head of
defacto complainant's sister. The defacto complainant and others
immediately took her to the hospital. The defacto complainant gave a
complaint for the said occurrence to the respondent. The respondent
Police registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2015 against the appellant, for
the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC.
2.2.After conducting investigation, the respondent police filed final
report before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
Ramanathapuram, and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.93 of 2017.
The learned trial Judge, framed the necessary charges, read over the same
to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 12
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.14 and one material object was marked. On the side of the appellant
neither witnesses were examined nor documents were marked.
2.5. The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of
the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the
prosecution evidence and the appellant denied as false. The learned trial
judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellant as stated
above.
3. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, present appeal
has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned trial Judge failed to consider the material discrepancies between
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.4, and erroneously convicted the
appellant under Section 324 of IPC.
4.2. The The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit
that the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellant from the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC and convicted him under Section
324 of IPC without any evidence to substantiate the conviction under
Section 324 of IPC.
4.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that
the learned trial Judge failed to see that there was no corroboration
between the evidence of eye-witness to the occurrence and the medical
evidence. Hence, the evidence of the injured witness has to be
disbelieved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
4.4. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend
that the learned trial Judge failed to consider the evidence of the recovery
witness, who had turned hostile relating to the recovery of MOs and
hence, recovery was not proved. Therefore, the conviction under Section
324 of IPC is not legally maintainable. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge by allowing
this case.
5.1. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), would
submit that when the evidence of the injured witness is cogent and
trustworthy and the same was corroborated by the medical evidence, the
minor discrepancies and the irrelevant contradictions is not a ground to
disbelieve the evidence of the injured witness.
5.2. The recovery of the material object namely, the weapon is not
necessary when the evidence of the injured witness is cogent and
trustworthy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
5.3. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly established the offence
under Section 324 of IPC as held by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, the
conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant under Section 324
of IPC needs no interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this
appeal.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
records available on record and also the precedents relied upon by them.
7. P.W.2, is the injured witness and her husband is one Vazhivittan.
The said Vazhivittan and the appellant's father are brothers. There was a
property dispute between them. Pending the above dispute, the
appellant's mother visited the house of P.W.2 to see the newly born grand
daughter of P.W.2. At that time, the appellant questioned her mother.
Hence, there was a scuffle and the appellant is said to have assaulted her
with knife and stick. Thereby, P.W.2 has sustained cut injuries on her
right parietal region of head and the same was witnessed by P.W.1. The
mother of the appellant told him that she came to see the new born child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
Therefore, the appellant assaulted P.W.2 with with knife and stick over
her right side of head and caused cut injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 and
P.W.3 called the ambulance and took her to the hospital and P.W.1,
brother of P.W.2's husband lodged a complaint before the respondent
police. P.W.2 clearly deposed about the assault made against her and
injuries sustained by her and the same corroborated with the evidence of
P.W.3 & P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 are cogent about the
assault made by the appellant and the injuries sustained by P.W.2. Their
evidence also corroborated with the evidence of the injured witness and
other eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned trial Judge correctly
appreciated the said evidence and found that the accused committed the
offence under Section 324 of IPC. This Court also finds no reason to differ
with the finding of the learned trial Judge believing the evidence of the
injured witness and all other eye-witness to the occurrence. The incident
took place inside of the house and therefore, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the
competent witnesses to speak about the occurrence. In view of the above,
this Court finds no merit in this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila
Court, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.93 of 2017 dated 04.02.2020, is
hereby confirmed. The bail bond executed shall be cancelled. The trial
Court is directed to secure the appellant and confine him in prison to
undergo remaining period of sentence of imprisonment.
30.04.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram 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 07:10:15 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:10:15 pm )
