Madras High Court
Dineshkumar @ Dinesh vs State Rep. By on 18 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.1435 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1435 of 2023 &
Crl.M.P.No.12370 of 2023
Dineshkumar @ Dinesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Madukkarai Police Station,
Coimbatore. ...Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated 05.04.2023
passed in Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2021 on the file of the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore District by confirming
the Judgment dated 01.11.2021 in S.C.No.162 of 2017 passed by the
learned II Additional Assistant Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.Balachandran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
ORDE R
The present Revision has been filed challenging the Judgment
passed in Crl.Appeal No.175 of 2021 dated 05.04.2023 on the file of the
learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore thereby
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in
S.C.No.162 of 2017 dated 01.11.2021 on the file of the learned II
Additional Assistant Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for offence punishable
under Sections 326 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is the spinster and
mentally challenged person and she was under the care and protection of
the defacto complainant. The petitioner used to steal the coconuts for his
own use and expenses from the heap and therefore, the victim warned the
petitioner and as such the petitioner developed animosity as against the
victim. While being so, on 03.06.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., when the victim
questioned the petitioner while stealing coconuts, immediately, the
petitioner with an intention to do away the life of the victim attacked her by
stones, thereby caused grievous injury on her, immediately she was taken
to hospital for treatment. After completion of investigation, the trial court
had taken cognizance for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
Exhibits P.1 to P.6 were marked and the prosecution obtained material
objects and marked as M.Os.1 to3 and on the side of the petitioner no one
was examined and no material objects were marked. On a perusal of the
entire materials on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo three
months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal and the order of conviction and sentence awarded by
the trial court was confirmed, as against the same, the petitioner has come
up with the present revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the victim
was examined as P.W.7 and her witness has been very clear and did not
support the case of the prosecution. That apart, the petitioner already met
with an accident and he is not able to run. The specific case of the
prosecution is that the petitioner after attacking victim ran away from the
scene of crime. The Doctor, who treated the victim was examined as
P.W.8 and he deposed that the injury sustained by the victim could also
happen when she fell down in the rough floor, thereby pleaded to set aside
the order passed by both the courts below.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
appearing for the respondent submitted that though the respondent filed a
final report for offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the trial court
convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.
The petitioner never denied the occurrence and the victim is mentally
challenged person and whenever the petitioner steals the coconut, the
victim used to scold him and warn him, therefore, there was previous
enmity and on the date of occurrence, when the petitioner was stealing
coconuts, it was questioned by the victim and immediately the petitioner
had attacked the victim by stone, thereby caused grievous injuries.
Accordingly, both the courts below found that the charges punishable
under Section 326 of IPC is categorically proved and awarded punishment
and hence the same does not require any interference by this Court,
thereby pleaded to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and
perused the documents placed on record.
7. Originally, the petitioner was charged for offence punishable under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
Section 307 of IPC, however, the trial court convicted the petitioner for
offences under Sections 326 of IPC. Admittedly, the victim, who is the
mentally challenged person was examined as P.W.7 by the trial court after
verification. P.W.7 categorically deposed that on 03.06.2016 at about
11.00 a.m., when she was warning and questioning the petitioner while he
was stealing coconuts along with other person, the petitioner attacked her
by stone on her head. Therefore, the victim sustained grievous injuries and
also one of her teeth was broken, immediately, a person, who was doing
agricultural work, came to the scene of crime and the petitioner escaped
from the scene of crime.
8. Subsequently, the injured was admitted to hospital and the Doctor,
P.W.8 who treated her found cut injuries on her right side head, back side
of right ear, temporal portion in the right side of the head, upper portion of
the right side lips and three small cut injuries in the back side of the head.
Further, P.W.8, Doctor opined that the injury sustained by the victim is
grievous in nature and the Doctor deposed that the victim was admitted in
the hospital on 03.06.2016 to 13.06.2016 as inpatient. The minor
controversies pointed out by the petitioner would not be fatal to the case of
prosecution, therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
passed by the trial court and the appellate court as well and hence the
order passed by both the courts below are confirmed. The present
Criminal Revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. The petitioner did not even surrender to comply with the
conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below till today and the
miscellaneous petition filed for Suspension of Sentence is also pending,
therefore, the respondent is directed to secure the petitioner in order to
comply with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the
trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
18.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking order
ssd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore
2. The II Additional Assistant Subordinate Court,
Coimbatore.
3. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Madukkarai Police Station,
Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,
ssd
18.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 01:39:12 pm )
