Madras High Court
A.Joseph vs The State Rep. By Its on 31 January, 2025
Crl.A.No.1108 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.1108 of 2024
A.Joseph ... Appellant/Sole Accused
v.
The State Rep. by its,
Inspector of Police,
K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 106.
(Crime No.200/2022) ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 22.07.2024
convicting the appellant made in S.C.No.44 of 2023 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai – 600 003.
For Appellant : Mr.N.G.P.Rajaram
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging
the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgment dated
22.07.2024 in S.C.No.44 of 2023, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.
2.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the victim
are husband and wife; that on 05.05.2022 at about 00.15 hours, there was a
quarrel between the appellant and the victim; that the appellant is said to
have stabbed the victim with a knife; and thus, committed the offence under
Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC.
(ii) On completion of investigation, examination of all witnesses and
arrest of the appellant, PW10, the Inspector of Police, filed a final report
against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and
307 of the IPC before learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
(iii) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions i.e., learned Principal District Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.44 of
2023. The case was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed
charges for the offences under Sections 509 and 307 of the IPC against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.
(vi) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.10, marked 15 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P15 and marked 4
material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. When the appellant was questioned,
u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him,
he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked
any document on his side.
(vii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable
doubt and held the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 307 and
509 of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:
Offence under Sentence imposed
Section
307 IPC To undergo SI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to undergo SI for six months.
509 IPC To undergo SI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in
default to undergo SI for three months.
The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction
and sentence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Heard, Mr.N.G.P.Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, and Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),
appearing for the respondent/State.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during the
pendency of the appeal, on the advice of the elders in the family, the parties
have arrived at a compromise and now living happily with two children and
in view of the peaceful matrimonial relationship, the judgment of conviction
and sentence may be set aside. The learned counsel further produced the
Joint Memo of Compromise dated 31.01.2025, signed by both parties and
attested by a Notary Public.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The victim [PW1] is present in Court and had confirmed the fact
that she is now living with the appellant happily and they have two children
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to support and the appellant is the only breadwinner. The scanned copy of
the Joint Compromise Memo dated 31.01.2025, is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The victim has been identified by Mr.K.Dhanasekaran, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, K-8 Arumbakkam Police, Station, Chennai and her
identity is also established by the Aadhaar card.
8. Though, the appellant is charged of the offences under Sections
307 and 509 of the IPC, this Court is of the view that the compromise can
be taken into account as the dispute is not only private, but arises out of a
matrimonial difference and that the parties have now arrived at a
compromise. It is reported by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
that the appellant was in custody for a period of about three months.
9. In view of the compromise arrived at and considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such circumstances, this Court is of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
imposed on the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone.
Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
(i) The Joint Memo of Compromise dated 31.01.2025, duly
signed by both parties, is taken on file.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The conviction of the appellant in S.C.No.44 of 2023 by
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam,
Chennai, vide judgment dated 22.07.2024 for the offences under
Sections 307 and 509 of the IPC, is confirmed, however, the
sentence imposed on the appellant/Accused by the trial Court, is
reduced to the period already undergone for both the aforesaid
offences; and
(iii) The fine amount and the default sentences for the non
payment of fine, imposed by the trial Court for both the offences,
are confirmed.
12. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly
allowed.
31.01.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : yes/no
ars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ars
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Allikulam, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
31.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
