Madras High Court
Suresh vs State Rep on 30 June, 2025
Crl.A.(MD)No.310 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A.(MD)No.310 of 2017
Suresh ... Appellant/Sole Accused
versus
State rep., by
The Inspector of Police,
Swamimalai Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime NO.157 of 2011 ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in Sessions Case No.122 of 2012 on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District and set aside the judgment dated 17.07.2017 and acquit
the accused /appellant.
For Appellant : Ms.V.Muthulakshmi
for Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
For Respondent : Mr.A. Albert James
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
Crl.A.(MD)No.310 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred as against the judgment of
conviction and sentence, dated 17.07.2017 made in S.C.No.122 of 2012 by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, thereby convicting and sentencing the
appellant to undergo 3 months of rigorous imprisonment for the offence
under Section 294(b) of IPC; to undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonment
for the offence under Section 324 of IPC; to undergo 1 year of rigorous
imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC; to undergo 1
year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil
Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992; and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution had arisen on the basis of the
complaint given by the defacto complainant, P.W.1, registered in Crime No.
157 of 2011 at the Swamimalai Police Station, Thanjavur, for the offences
under Sections 294(b), 447, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act, is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
(a) Due to the dispute arose in respect of compound wall between the
accused and the defacto complainant, on 12.05.2011, the accused trespassed
into the house of P.W.1 by destroying the fence with sickle and cut the
trees. When P.W.1 questioned him, the accused abused him in filthy
language and attacked him with sickle on the left side of his cheek. When
the other witness, P.W.2, prevented the attack, the accused intimidated the
defacto complainant stating that he would kill him. Due to the criminal act
committed by the accused, damage to the property of P.W.1 to the tune of
Rs.10,000/- has been caused.
(b) After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed
against the accused. Since the offence is triable by the Sessions Court, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Judge has taken
cognizance in S.C.No.122 of 2012 and after completing the legal mandates
of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, the trial Judge framed
charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324
and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. When the accused
was questioned, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
(c) During trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. Besides, M.O.1 and M.O.2
were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence
was let in.
(d) After completion of trial, based on the oral and documentary
evidence, the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated
supra. Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
though the complainant has stated that he was attacked on the neck with the
backside of sickle, the evidence of Doctor would only show that injuries on
the left side of the defacto complainant's cheek, and not on his neck. He
further submitted that the materials witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 are closely
related and thus, they are interested witnesses. He further contended that
the complaint itself was motivated by a dispute concerning a compound
wall. Despite allegations that the accused cut down the trees, the police
failed to recover any such trees. In the complaint, there is no mention about
the damage caused to windows, however, the observation mahazar recorded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
broken windows and glass pieces at the scene, which introduces
discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative. The trial Court has convicted
the accused for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC, without properly
appreciating the legal principle that mere words alone do not suffice to
constitute criminal intimidation. There must be a threat of injury or harm
beyond mere verbal expression to uphold a conviction under this Section.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the
State submitted that the learned trial Judge has correctly observed that even
though the complainant was attacked targeting the neck, it could have
inflicted injury on his cheek, as noted by the medical evidence. The
doctor’s observation of an injury on the cheek of P.W.1 aligns with this
possibility, and the trial Judge duly appreciated this fact. Further, in cross-
examination, P.W.1 admitted to damage caused to his windows. The
recovery of broken glass pieces at the scene of occurrence corroborates this
claim, lending support to the prosecution’s case. The eyewitness evidence
is consistent and cogent. The fact that the witnesses are relatives does not,
in itself, render their testimony discreditable or unreliable. The trial Court
rightly considered their evidence credible for reaching its conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
6. P.W.1 is the complainant, who has lodged a complaint on
12.05.2011, at about 17.30 hours. The occurrence had taken place at about
4.45 pm., on the same day. As per the complaint, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3
were inside the house and speaking with each other, at that time, the
accused was damaging the trees. When P.W.1 objected the same, the
accused abused him in filthy language and attacked him on his neck with
the backside of sickle. There was also damage caused to the windows
during incident. As per the estimate provided by the defacto complainant,
the damage of the property valued at Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1, in his testimony,
described the occurrence in a substantially similar manner. He stated that he
rushed outside the house upon hearing the noise of the fence being broken.
The accused allegedly trespassed into the house premises of P.W.1 and cut
down all the trees. Despite these allegations, no charge was framed for the
offence of trespass. It remains unclear whether the prosecution presented
any positive evidence on this aspect during the trial. The reason for the
omission of the charge for trespass was not explained by the trial Judge.
But the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear about the fact that the accused has
trespassed into his house and damaged fence, windows and trees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
7. P.W.1, in his evidence, did not specify the exact words allegedly
used by the accused, when threatening him or his wife, P.W.2. The weapon
allegedly used for the occurrence has been recovered and marked as
Ex.M.O.1, sickle. The nature of the threat under Section 506(ii) of IPC
remains unsupported by clear testimony. It is also relevant that the house of
the accused is adjacent to the house of the P.W.1. They have some dispute
with regard to compound wall between their houses. Even though P.W.1, in
his chief examination, has not stated about damage caused to the windows,
this was addressed during the cross-examination. In the cross examination,
he has stated that the windows have been damaged and the glasses of
windows were broken in the occurrence. Further, during the cross-
examination, P.W.1 claimed to have sustained a contusion on his neck.
However, the medical evidence does not support this and the doctor
observed no injury on the neck, but only noted a contusion on the left cheek
of P.W.1. This inconsistency raises questions about the credibility and
accuracy of the injury claim.
8. During the cross-examination, the doctor stated that such an injury
sustained by P.W.1 could have been caused by a fall to the ground. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
further opined that it was not possible for such an injury to be caused by a
sickle. In the present case, it is not stated that the accused had cut P.W.1
with the sickle; rather, it is only alleged manner of assault. Therefore, there
exists a strong possibility that the injury might have been sustained by
P.W.1 due to a fall at the time of the occurrence. In this regard, it is relevant
to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P (2010(96) AIC 129), wherein it has been
held as under:
........”21. It has strenuously been argued on behalf of the
appellants that the injuries found on the person of victims could not
be caused with the weapons alleged to have been with the
appellants and the same cannot be in consonance with the ocular
evidence of Anees (PW.1), Ashfaq (PW.2) and Usman Ali (PW.4).
Thus, appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt as there is
clear cut contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.
.....36. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a
contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can
be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a
witness has greater evidentiary value vis-`-vis medical evidence,
when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable,
that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of
evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it
completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being
true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
9. As there is no consistency between the substantive evidence and
the medical evidence with respect to the allegation of causing simple
injuries, I am of the view that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
as regards to the charge for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
Accordingly, the conviction imposed against the accused for the offence
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside on the
ground of benefit of doubt.
10. However, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 are clearly established
that the accused came to the house of P.W.1 by damaging fence. Upon
hearing the commotion, they rushed out of the house and objected the act of
the accused. At that point of time, the accused threatened the witnesses and
caused damage to the properties, such as windows and glass panes. P.W.2,
who is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.3, who is the sister of P.W.2, have also
given consistent and corroborative evidence to show that the accused had
damaged both the fence and windows of P.W.1's house. The motive for the
occurrence have been clearly spoken by all the important witnesses,
P.W.1 to P.W.3 that there was some compound wall dispute between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
accused and P.W.1.
11. P.W.4, who is a friend of P.W.1, who was informed about the
occurrence by P.W.1. Upon receiving the information, he immediately
proceeded to the scene and took P.W.1 to the hospital.
12. P.W.7, who is a friend of P.W.1, who used to visit the house of
P.W.1. He went to the house of P.W.1 on the date of occurrence by chance
and he also deposed the evidence in a manner acceptable by the Court. The
eyewitnesses not only heard the accused using the words of threat at the
scene of occurrence, but also identified the broken glass pieces and the
sickle recovered from the scene, which were marked as Material Objects
M.O.1 and M.O.2, respectively.
13. The overall evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly establishes that
the incident occurred in the manner alleged by P.W.1, the complainant. The
mahazar also contains sufficient material evidence produced before the
Court to demonstrate that the house of P.W.1 was damaged due to the
unlawful acts committed by the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
14. As regards 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court time and again that for the
offence punishable under Section 506(ii), the threat should be realistic and
not mere words. If the person uttering those words does not exactly mean
what he say and the person who hears does not feel the threat, it is not fair
on the part of the Court below to convict the accused for the offence under
Section 506(ii) of IPC. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P
(2024 SCC OnLine SC 726), wherein it has been held as under: -
“38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the
accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not
matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the
accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence
on record. The word ‘intimidate’ means to make timid or fearful,
especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats. The threat
communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet
as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said
person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her
mind. The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent to inflict punishment,
loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
15. In the instant case, neither the intention of the accused to cause
threat to P.W.1 nor the realistic threat beyond words have been proved.
Hence, the conviction of the accused for the said offence under Section
506(ii) of IPC is liable to be set aside.
16. The overall evidence clearly establishes that the accused
committed an obscene act by using filthy and abusive language towards the
complainant and his relatives who were present at the scene of occurrence.
As the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of the
Indian Penal Code are satisfied, and the accused is liable to be convicted for
the same.
17. As far as the offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act is concerned, the evidence
of eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 is trustworthy. P.W.4, who arrived to the place
of occurrence immediately after the incident, has also corroborated the
version of the prosecution. In addition, the independent witness P.W.7, who
stood as witness for the observation mahazar, and the material objects
collected also support the case and establish the fact that the accused went
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
to the house of P.W.1 and caused damage.
18. Even though there may have been some motive between P.W.1
and the accused, the testimony of P.W.7, an independent witness to the
occurrence, clearly states that the accused caused damage to the fence, trees,
and window panes. Furthermore, P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, visited
the place of occurrence, after registering the case and prepared the rough
sketch and observation mahazar. Her documentation also confirms the
presence of a fenced structure at the place of occurrence. Apart from the
fence, there was also a compound wall at the place of occurrence, which,
however, was found to be undamaged. P.W.9 further clarified that the
reference made by P.W.1 “Nty; KWf;fp rj;jk;” pertains to the noise
created during the cutting of trees. There is some deficiency in the
preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch, in which P.W.
9 failed to note the presence of cut tree pieces and damaged windows.
However, the overall evidence on record clearly indicates that damage was
indeed caused to the property. These lapses in documentation do not, by
themselves, discredit the consistent and reliable testimony of the affected
witnesses and the eyewitnesses. Even assuming that there was no natural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
fence and only a compound wall, there is sufficient evidence to prove that
the accused trespassed into the property of P.W.1 and caused damage by
breaking various items, including window glass panes.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no proper
assessment was conducted to determine the value of the damages allegedly
caused. Therefore, the prosecution's claim that the value of the damage
amounts to Rs.10,000/- is not substantiated and cannot be accepted as
correct.
20. It is a lapse on the part of the prosecution that no formal
assessment of the damage was conducted with the assistance of an official
assessor. However, such failure does not render the entire prosecution case
false, nor does it make the extent of the damage unquantifiable by applying
common sense. Considering that several trees were damaged and damage
was caused to eight window panels, the estimated value of damage at
Rs.10,000/-, in my opinion, appears to be reasonable and acceptable.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, although the submissions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
the learned counsel for the appellant regarding insufficient evidence to
convict the accused under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC are justified,
the evidence on record is nonetheless sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 294(b) of
the IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
Damage and Loss) Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is
confirmed insofar it found the accused guilty for the offence under Section
294(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and the judgment of the
trial Court finding the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 324 and
506(ii) of the IPC is set aside.
22. With regard to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the accused is the first offender and hence, the
punishment of one year imprisonment may be modified by imposing fine.
As per Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss) Act, a person found guilty shall be sentenced to a mandatory
minimum imprisonment of one year. However, the proviso to this Section
allows the Court, for convincing reasons, to impose a lesser sentence than
the prescribed minimum of one year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
23. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is a first-time offender with no previous criminal
antecedents and is willing to make good the loss suffered by the defacto
complainant, I am of the view that the sentence of one year imprisonment
can be modified.
24. In the result,
(i) This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District,
in S.C.No.122 of 2012 dated 17.07.2017 is hereby modified in respect of the
finding of the guilt and punishment imposed against this appellant / sole
accused as below.:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
Findings and Punishment imposed by the Modification Now
Trial Court Made
Section 294(b) of IPC Confirmed
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to
undergo 3 months (R.I)
Section 324 of IPC Found not guilty-
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to Acquitted
undergo 6 months (R.I)
Section 506(ii) of IPC Found not guilty-
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to Acquitted
undergo one year (R.I)
Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act Found guilty and the
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to substantive sentence is
undergo one year (R.I) reduced to undergo six
months (R.I)
iii) So far as the fine amount is concerned, the same is enhanced to
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), out of which, Rs.40,000/- shall
be paid to P.W.1 within a period of one week from the date on which this
judgment is uploaded in the official web-site. Failure on the part of the
appellant to pay the enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall cause him to
loss the benefit of the modification of punishment of imprisonment awarded
as aforesaid. Fine amount if any already paid shall be adjusted against the
fine amount now enhanced. P.W.1/defacto complainant is permitted to
withdraw the compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- by filing an application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
iv) It is further directed that the period of detention already undergone
by the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C and
the sentences shall run concurrently.
v) The trial court shall take steps to secure the accused to commit him
to prison to serve out the period of sentence.
30.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No.
Rmk
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
DR.R.N.MANJULA, J.,
Rmk
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 03:52:24 pm )
