Madras High Court
Prabakar vs State Through The on 11 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.478 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.478 of 2025
1.Prabakar
2.Pradeep .... Petitioners
Vs
State through the
Inspector of Police,
Poompugar Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
Crime No.17 of 2010 .... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Sirkali in C.C.No.145 of 2010, allow the revision filed by the
petitioner by setting aside the Judgment dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai in C.A.No.30 of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.Patrix
for Mr.K.M.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.478 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the
Judgement dated 05.08.2022 passed in C.A.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby confirming the conviction
and sentence dated 05.05.2017 imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.145 of
2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali, for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 352 and 326 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2010, at about 17
hours, the accused restrained the defacto complainant and another in Poombuhar
Main Road, when they were proceeded to west to east in their two wheeler. The
accused allegedly abused them using filthy language and assaulted them with an
iron chain and an iron rod. As a result, one of the victims sustained a fracture
on his left knee and another victim sustained injuries.
3. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in
Crime No.17 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341,
294(b), 352, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a
final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court
in C.C.No.145 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
4. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined
and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. The prosecution had also produced M.O.1. On
the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were
marked.
5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court found the first petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Section
294(b) and 352 of IPC and found the second petitioner guilty for the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 326 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed and confirmed the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged occurrence beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution produced M.O.1, which is an iron chain with
a handle. However, it cannot be construed as an iron road or iron pipe, as
mentioned in the Accident Register, which was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.1 was
initially taken to a private hospital for treatment. However, there was no
Accident Register recorded by the Doctor, who treated the victim. Subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
to the first treatment, when the victim went to another hospital, an Accident
Register was prepared. Further, the X-ray taken by the doctor does not mention
the name of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges
under Section 326 of IPC.
7. According to the victims, six persons had attacked them with
iron pipes. However, no weapon was recovered from any of the accused in
pursuant to their confession. The respondent recovered M.O.1 from a garbage
collection place which is nearly one kilometer away from the scene of
occurrence. M.O.1 was also not identified by any witnesses. There are material
contradictions between the witnesses, which are fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that the victims were examined as P.W.1
and P.W.2. They cogently deposed and substantiated the charges, stating that
the weapon used by the accused was a 'Nanja Chain' which is also referred to
as an iron pipe, as it consists of two handles. Further, meager contradictions
between the prosecution witnesses are not fatal to the case of the prosecution
and it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Both the victims clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
deposed about the overt acts of the accused. As such, the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioner.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
10. There are totally six accused, in which, the petitioners are
arrayed as A1 and A2. Due to previous enmity, the accused waylaid the
victims, when they were proceeded in their motorcycle and attacked them with a
'Nanja Chain' fitted with iron handles. The accused also abused them in filthy
language and threatened them with dire consequences. The first victim was
examined as P.W.1. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 reveals that there was
previous enmity between the accused and P.W.1 & P.W.2, arising out a dispute
regarding the playing of songs during the betrothal ceremony of the cousin
brother of P.W.1. Therefore, the accused planned to attack the victims. Upon
learning of this, the victims proceeded on their motorcycle to inform their
relatives. However, the accused intercepted them and attacked them with
M.O.1 which is called as Nanja Kattai, which, being composed of two handles,
is also known as an iron pipe with chain. The second petitioner attacked P.W.1
with M.O.1 below his left knee and as such P.W.1 sustained multiple fracture
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
on his left leg. P.W.2 also sustained injury. Subsequently, P.W.1 was taken to
private hospital, where he was given first aid. Thereafter, he was taken to the
Government Hospital, Mayiladuthurai, where the Accident Register was
recorded and marked as Ex.P4.
11. The wound certificate of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P5 and the
discharge summary was marked as Ex.P6. P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were the eye
witnesses to the occurrence and supported the case of the prosecution by
corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Doctor who recorded the
Accident Register was examined as P.W.10. After recording the Accident
Register, the injured was referred to higher medical facility for further
treatment. Subsequently, P.W.1 was admitted to Krishna Hospital,
Mayiladuthurai, on 12.02.2010, where he was treated for a fracture on his left
leg. The Doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.11 and he issued the
wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P5. He categorically deposed that
P.W.1 had sustained multiple fractures on his left leg, along with external
injuries. Therefore, he certified the injuries as grievous one.
12. In the light of the above, the prosecution has categorically
proved the charges against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly convicted the petitioners. Further,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
M.O.1 was also duly identified by P.W.1 and it was established that the second
petitioner had attacked him with M.O.1.
13. In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Revision Case
stands dismissed.
11.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sirkali.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Poompugar Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
11.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:38 pm )
