Madras High Court
Haridevan vs The State Rep. Inspector Of Police on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.630 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RERSERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.630 of 2022
Haridevan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. Inspector of Police,
K.V.Kuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
(Crime No.156/2014). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in
Crl.A.No.13/2019 by judgment dated 14.03.2022 partly allowed the
appeal by modifying the judgment and sentence passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, Vellore District in C.C.No.119/2015 dated
28.01.2019 and set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.630 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by judgment, dated 28.01.2019 in
C.C.No.119 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi (trial
Court) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 294(b)
IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years (3
counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (3 counts) in default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for three months (3 counts) for offence under
Section 325 IPC and also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.
Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (Lower Appellate
Court) in Crl.A.No.13 of 2019. The Lower Appellate Court by judgment,
dated 14.03.2022 partly allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction
for offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and modifying the
conviction under Section 325 IPC (3 counts) to 325 IPC (2 counts) and
sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment (2 counts) and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (2 counts) in default to undergo one month
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
Simple Imprisonment (2 counts). Further, the petitioner is convicted and
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 323 IPC
in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved
over the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.
2.Gist of the case is that on 09.07.2014 at about 07.30 a.m., when
the defacto complainant/PW1, his wife/PW2 and daughters/PW3 & PW8
were ploughing the field, at that time the petitioner and his mother had
gone there, abused PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW8, using wooden log
assaulted PW1 on his left hand, PW2 on his left palm, PW3 on her right
palm and also beaten PW8 and caused grievous injuries. PW4, who was
a passer-by after milk vending, found PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW8
suffered injuries, brought an auto, sent them to Government Hospital,
Gudiyatham where Dr.Sivan, who was on duty, treated PW1, PW2 and
PW3. The X-ray and Wound Certificate of PW1 marked as Exs.P4 & P5.
The X-Ray and Wound Certificate of PW2 marked as Exs.P6 & P7 and
the Wound Certificate of PW3 is marked as Ex.P8. From Exs.P4 to P8, it
is seen that PW1, PW2 & PW3 sustained fracture injuries which are
grievous in nature. PW9, Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of
information from the hospital, visited the hospital, recorded the statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
(Ex.P1) of PW1, registered FIR (Ex.P9), visited the scene of occurrence,
recorded the statement of witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, in
presence of witnesses (PW5 & PW6) prepared Observation Mahazar
(Ex.P10) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P11), examined Dr.Sivan, collected the
medical records (Exs.P4 to P8) and on completion of investigation, filed
charge sheet before the trial Court against the petitioner and his mother.
The trial Court on conclusion of trial, acquitted the petitioner's mother
and convicted the petitioner as stated above.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the son of PW1's brother and they are close relatives. They
have a property dispute and a civil suit is pending in this regard. The
petitioner's father obtained injunction against PW1 and his family not to
disturb the peaceful possession of the property. Despite prohibitory
order of civil Court, PW1 to PW3 engaged a tractor to plough the
disputed property, caused damage and further claimed right over the
property. The petitioner along with his mother had gone to the field,
questioned PW1 and his family for ploughing the field, at that time there
was wordy quarrel, push and pull and the petitioner was assaulted and
abused by PW1 to PW3. Hence, PW1 to PW3 are aggressors in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
Suppressing the same, in offensive, PW4, a close relative and Aunt of
PW3, took PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW8 in an auto to hospital and projected
a case as though they were assaulted by the petitioner and his mother.
The Wound Certificates (Exs.P5, P7 & P8) marked and the evidence of
PW1, PW2, PW3 are with exaggerations and improvements. In this case,
Dr.Sivan who treated the injured not examined as witness, on the other
hand, one Dr.Babu/PW7 examined through him, the Accident Registers
and Wound Certificates (Exs.P4 to P8) marked. No explanation given by
the prosecution for non availability of Dr.Sivan. Hence, the medical
records (Exs.P4 to P8) produced by PW7 is not proved in the manner
known to law.
4.The learned counsel further submits that PW8 admits that earlier
PW1 was assaulted by Apple @ Soundarrajan, Ravi, Dhanraj, Babu and
sustained fracture in yet another case. Likewise on 14.04.2000, PW1 and
PW2 were arrested for assault on the complaint of the petitioner and they
were in prison for three days, as a counter blast, the above case fabricated
against the petitioner. He further submitted that the evidence of PW1,
PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW8 is categorical that after the alleged assault,
they had gone to Police Station, PW4 had written the complaint,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
thereafter, they had gone to hospital. PW1 on the contrary had gone to
the hospital, from there lodged a complaint (Ex.P1). The Investigating
Officer/PW9 stated that on receipt of information, visited the hospital,
received the complaint (Ex.P1) and registered FIR (Ex.P9). Hence, the
foundational facts of the case becomes doubtful. In this case, admittedly,
the weapon said to have used in the attack, not seized. The witnesses
gave exaggeration version as though wooden log and knife used in the
attack, both the weapons used alternatively, which is nothing but an
imaginary story. In view of the above, the prosecution failed to prove the
case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, prays for acquittal.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that the trial Court convicted the petitioner
on the evidence of injured witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW8 and
Doctor/PW7 and medical records (Exs.P4 to P8). PW4 accompanied
PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW8 to the Government Hospital, Guidyatham. One
Dr.Sivan, Casualty Doctor in Gudiyatham Government Hospital treated
PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW8 and issued Accident Register (Exs.P5, P7 &
P8) and X-Ray (Exs.P4 & P6). The injuries suffered by all three
witnesses are grievous in nature. The Wound Certificates (Exs.P5 & P7)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
and X-Ray (Exs.P4 & P6) of PW1 & PW2 produced confirming the
fracture. The accused claimed that PW1 and his family members are
aggressors, after wordy quarrel exchange of blows. The mother of the
petitioner/A2 was arrested on the same day of the occurrence, no
complaint of any assault by PW1 to PW3 or the accused. Now the
petitioner invented a new story as though PW1 to PW3, as aggressors,
picked up quarrel, abused and assaulted the petitioner using wooden log.
6.He further submitted that though the petitioner claims that his
father obtained civil Court injunction against PW1, no order or any
details produced and confronted with PW1 to PW3. In this case, PW1 to
PW3 are injured witnesses confirmed by the medical evidence. In this
case, non examination of the Doctor who treated the injured and non
seizure of wooden log used during the attack, would not be fatal to the
case of the prosecution. The trial Court convicted the petitioner for
offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 325 IPC, but the lower
appellate Court acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 294(b)
& 506(ii) IPC and modified conviction under Section 325 IPC (3 counts)
to 325 IPC (2 counts) and imposed fine sentence for offence under
Section 323 IPC. Thus, the lower appellate Court on independent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
assessment of evidence and materials, had confirmed the conviction of
the petitioner with modification. Hence, prayed for dismissal.
7.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is
seen that the petitioner and PW1, PW2, PW3, PW8, and PW4 are all
close relatives, there is a property dispute between them. The petitioner
is the son of PW1's brother. The petitioner's father obtained injunction
order from the civil Court restraining PW1 and his family members not to
enter the disputed property. This being so, on 09.07.2014, PW1 engaged
one Selvam, a Tractor Driver to plough the disputed property, caused
damage and PW1 to PW3 were preparing the field for agricultural
activities. The petitioner and his mother questioned PW1 to PW3, wordy
quarrel arose, thereafter it ensued into push and pull and exchange of
blows. PW8, another daughter of PW1 and PW2 came to the scene of
occurrence later. PW4, a close relative of PW1, a passer-by, took all
injured to the Government Hospital, Gudiyatham where Dr.Sivan treated
PW1 to PW3 and issued Exs.P4 to P8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
8.The animosity between the petitioner and PW1, PW2, PW3 &
PW8 is not in dispute. In this case, the mother of the petitioner was
arrayed as accused who faced trial and the trial Court acquitted and
discharged her from the charges. It is to be seen that PW1 to PW3
engaged a tractor, ploughed the disputed property and caused damages.
The act of PW1 to PW3 confirms they are aggressors, invited trouble,
due to which, the occurrence had taken place. Further, the prosecution
not examined the Doctor who treated PW1, PW2, PW3 & PW4, for
which no reason given. On the other hand, through another Doctor/PW7,
the medical records (Exs.P4 to P8) marked. The wooden log and knife
used during the attack not seized/marked as material object.
9.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to modify the
conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, the
conviction under Section 325 IPC (2 counts) is modified to 335 IPC by
setting aside the jail sentence and confirming the fine alone. Further,
already imposed fine sentence for offence under Section 323 IPC is
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
10.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is Partly-Allowed.
17.06.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Katpadi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
K.V.Kuppam Police Station,
Vellore District
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:36:55 pm )
