Madras High Court
The vs The State Rep By on 30 April, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2020
BAIL SLIP
The Appellant/Accused viz., Jeyakumar, S/o.Selvam, was directed to be
released on bail vide order in Crl.MP.(MD).No.2322/2020 IN Crl.A(MD).no.
126/2020, dated.06/03/2020
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.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.D.Anbarasu
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
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.N Accused No. Offence Punishable Sentence of Imprisonment and fine
o under Section
1 Sole 324 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and
Accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default,
to undergo 1 month Simple
imprisonment.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
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, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
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.
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: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
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.
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.
Sd/-
30.04.2025
// True Copy //
/ /2025
Sub Assistant Registrar
(CS- I, II, III, IV)
dss
To,
1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
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.
+1 CC to M/s.D.ANBARASU, Advocate ( SR-28966[F] dated
30/04/2025 )
30.04.2025
SK (08/05/2025) 8P / 7C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 09:42:14 pm )
