Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1271 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 July, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.684 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.684 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7515 of 2025
C.Moni ... Petitioner
-vs-
The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Inspector of Police,
Pudhukadai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.123 of 2007) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Review Case filed under 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023,
to call for the records pertaining to the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.59 of
2013 dated 09.01.2025, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kuzhithurai, confirming the sentence of conviction imposed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, in S.C.No.66 of 2008 dated
05.09.2013 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Hariprasad
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed, challenging the judgment
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, in C.A.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
59 of 2013, dated 09.01.2025, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, in S.C.No.
66 of 2008, dated 05.09.2013, by which the revision petitioner/A1 was
convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo
seven years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in
default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the second
accused/A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and
sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The
present revision is preferred only by the first accused.
Factual Matrix of the Case:-
The occurrence took place on 14.06.2007 at 12:00 p.m., at a burial
ground in Kaiyalavilai. The mother of P.W.2 Thangappan, namely
Chinnapillai, had passed away. P.W.2, along with P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4,
P.W.5, and one Prema, went in search of a burial site. While they were
attempting to dig a pit to bury the body, the first accused arrived at the
scene with a machete and objected to the burial. When P.W.2 insisted,
stating they intended to bury the deceased beside his father’s grave, the
first accused threatened P.W.2 saying, “you also go die,” and attacked him
multiple times with a machete (arival). Subsequently, the second accused
also attacked P.W.2 with a billhook (machete), causing multiple injuries.
The injured was taken to the hospital where P.W.3, the duty doctor, treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
him and issued Ex.P2, the wound certificate, indicating one grievous injury
(fracture of right index finger) and ten other simple injuries. The first
information report was registered on 15.06.2007 at 00:30 hours in Crime
No.123 of 2007 for offences under Section 307 of IPC.
The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.9, concluded that the prosecution had established the case beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimonies of P.W.1 (wife of the injured), P.W.2
(injured victim), and P.W.3 (doctor) were found consistent and
corroborative. The injuries, particularly the grievous one, along with the
repeated assault and threatening statements made by the accused, were
held sufficient to infer the intention to commit murder, thus attracting
Section 307 of IPC. The learned Trial Court accordingly convicted both
accused and sentenced them. The learned Appellate Court in Criminal
Appeal No.59 of 2013, concurred with the findings of the learned Trial
Court. It held that the essential ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, namely
intention or knowledge and the nature of the act being sufficient to cause
death if not prevented, stood fully satisfied. The Court also addressed the
defence of enmity arising out of civil disputes and held that mere enmity is
not a ground to discard otherwise reliable and corroborated evidence,
particularly of the injured witness. The learned Appellate Court thus
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed
by the learned Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
Grounds of Revision:-
The revision petitioner contended that there were material
contradictions in witness depositions. Recovery of weapons was not proved.
All eyewitnesses were related and no independent witnesses were
examined. The place of occurrence was not properly identified. P.W.3’s
wound certificate showed inconsistency in injury count. There was
previous enmity and possibility of false implication.
Discussion and Findings:-
This Court, being a revisional court, does not re-appreciate evidence
unless there is manifest illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.
Upon perusal of the records and findings of the Courts below, this Court
finds that the injured witness (P.W.2) clearly deposed the overt acts of both
accused and his version was corroborated by P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, and
medical evidence. P.W.3, the doctor, confirmed 11 injuries, one of which
was grievous. The argument that the place of occurrence was not proved is
without merit and the investigation was properly carried out and spot
inspection done. Minor contradictions in measurement of weapons or
number of people present are not material and do not shake the
prosecution’s core case. Recovery of weapons, though relevant, is not sine
qua non for conviction when eyewitness and medical evidence convincingly
prove the incident. The existence of civil disputes does not nullify the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
evidence of injured witnesses, if found credible.
Conclusion:-
Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact based
on cogent, corroborated, and credible evidence. This Court finds no
perversity or patent illegality in the said judgments. The grounds urged in
the Criminal Revision Case are factual in nature and have been thoroughly
considered and rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court and learned first
Appellate Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such well-
reasoned concurrent findings.
Result:-
This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the Courts below are hereby
confirmed. The learned Trial Court is directed to take necessary steps for
securing the custody of the revision petitioner to serve the period of
sentence imposed on him. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Pudhukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
21.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 02:57:28 pm )
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!