Madras High Court
Mariappan vs The State Represented By on 5 February, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.240 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.240 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1896 & 1899 of 2025
1. Mariappan
2. Anitha
3. Varun ... Petitioners
Vs
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Palaiyur Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C.,/Section 401 Cr.P.C.,/Section 438 read with Section
442 of BNSS, to allow this Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the
order passed in C.A.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the District and Sessions
Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 23.08.2024 and which was confirmed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai in S.T.C.No.55 of
2020 dated 15.12.2021.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.240 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.U.Kathiravan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the
judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed in C.A.No.1 of 2022 on the file of the
District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the order dated
15.12.2021 passed in S.T.C.No.55 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2019, the
accused persons scolded P.W.1 with filthy language ad assaulted him
with bare hands and wooden log and threatened him with dire
consequences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that false case
has been foisted against them. P.W.1 who is the victim has stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
the first accused scolded him with filthy language and also received the
stick from his wife and attacked him. Later, he stated that the first
accused assaulted the victim with hands only and due to which, there
was bleeding on the nose. The Doctor has stated that the victim
sustained injuries only on the lips. P.W.2 has not spoken anything about
the alleged incident and he is only a hearsay witness. Though P.Ws.3 and
4 are cited as eye witnesses, they have not stated specifically as to who
are the accused attacked the victim and on which part of the body of the
victim getting injured. There are material contradictions between the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, two of the eye witnesses
have turned hostile. The eye witnesses who have supported the case of
the prosecution have not specifically stated that the petitioners have
scolded the victim with filthy language in a public view. The petitioners
have challenged the judgment of the trial court and filed an appeal before
the first appellate court. The first appellate court is a fact finding court,
failed to re-appreciate the evidence, simply endorsed the views of the
trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner is before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
4. He further submitted that as per decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, mere scolding in the private place or in the
covered place offence under Section 294(b) would not attract. Except
P.W.1, none of the witnesses have spoken that the accused scolded the
victim with filthy language in their presence. Therefore ingredients of
offence under Section 294(b) IPC would not attract. Both the courts
below failed to appreciate the evidence and over sighted the material
contradictions in the evidence of the defacto complainant and the eye
witnesses.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case by examination of the witnesses and out
of which, P.W.1 who is the victim has clearly spoken about the offence
committed by the petitioners. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses who
have corroborated the same. Hence, the trial court appreciated the
evidence and convicted the accused. The appellate Court has also rightly
re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial
court. There is no merit in the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.
7. The respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.297 of
2020 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323
and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.927 of 2020. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai. The petitioners were charged for the
offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC. During trial, in order to
substantiate the case of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined
on the side of the prosecution and five documents were marked. On the
side of the defence, neither witness was examined nor document was
marked.
8. After completion of trial, the trial court convicted the
petitioners for the offence under Sections 294(b) and to pay fine of
Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
also convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 323 IPC and
imposed sentence of simple imprisonment of six months and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.
Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the
learned Principal District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.A.No.1 of 2022.
The appellate court after hearing both parties and re-appreciated the
evidence, confirmed the order passed by the trial court.
9. P.W.1, who is the victim has clearly spoken about the
involvement of the petitioner in the said offence. P.Ws.3 and 4 have
corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. Though P.Ws.3 to 6 are cited as eye
witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6 have turned hostile. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that except P.W.1, no other eye
witnesses have spoken that the accused scolded the victim with filthy
language and there is no corroboration regarding the offence under
Section 294(b) IPC. Both the Courts below held that charge for the
offence under Section 294(b) IPC has been proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
has pointed out some contradictions regarding the handling of the
weapons and also the place of attack. However, on a reading of
materials, it is seen that P.W.1 has clearly spoken that all the three
accused have come to the occurrence place and scolded him with filthy
language and attacked P.W.1 with stick. The victim/P.W.1 has clearly
spoken that A1 attacked with stick and A2 attacked with hands and also
both pulled her and kicked him. Other eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 have
clearly stated that after hearing the noise, they came to the occurrence
place and they have also seen that the accused who are the petitioners
herein attacked P.W.1/victim.
10. Though there are contradictions between the evidence of
P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 and the doctor's evidence, but the said contradictions
are not material contradictions. P.Ws.3 and 4 have clearly spoken about
the presence of th petitioners in the occurrence place and also stated that
they attacked the defacto complainant/victim/P.W.1 and immediately
they admitted the victim in the hospital. The doctor has clearly stated
about the injuries sustained by the victim. Hence charges for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC were made out as against
the petitioners.
11. Considering the materials available on record, this Court
finds that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are not material contradictions. Further, evidence of P.W.1
was corroborated with the eye witness and also medical
evidence/witness.
12. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find any merit in the criminal revision case and the same
is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.02.2025
mfa
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
1. The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mayiladuthurai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Palaiyur Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J
mfa
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1896 & 1899 of 2025
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:25:43 pm )
