Madras High Court
Praveen @ Praveenkumar vs The State Through The on 30 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 & 731 of 2023
Crl.RC.No.726 of 2023
Praveen @ Praveenkumar ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State through the
Inspector of Police,
Rural Police Station,
Nallur, Tiruppur
(crime No.547 of 2019) ..... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the judgment of dismissal(partly) passed in Crl.A.No.76 of
2023 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dated
09.03.2023 as well as the judgment of conviction passed in SC.No.20 of 2021
on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dated
13.12.2022 by allowing the criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
Crl.RC.No.731 of 2023
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
Raja @ Magaraja ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Rural Police Station,
Nallur, Tiruppur District
(crime No.547 of 2019) ..... Respondent
PRAYER:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 09.03.2023 passed in
Crl.A.No.46 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur partly confirming by the judgment by modifying the sentence from 7
years R.I. to 3 years R.I. and conviction dated 13.12.2022 made in SC.No.20 of
2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vignesh
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
COMMON ORDER
Both the criminal revision cases have been preferred against the
judgments passed in Crl.A.Nos.76 & 46 of 2023 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dated 09.03.2023 thereby confirming the
order of conviction rendered by the trial court for the offence punishable under
Sections 341, 294(b), 307 of IPC r/w Section 109 of IPC and modifying the
sentence by reducing from seven years to three years in the judgment passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
SC.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur dated 13.12.2022.
2. The petitioner in Crl.RC.No.726 of 2023 is the second accused and
the petitioner in Crl.RC.No.731 of 2023 is the first accused. The case of the
prosecution is that the defacto complainant had been working as Supplier in the
bar of the Tasmac Shop No.3981. He used to stay in the shop itself. While being
so, on 01.11.2019 at about 11.00 p.m. For returning to his native, he was
waiting in Chettypalayam bus stop. At that time, the accused came there in their
two wheeler and stopped their vehicle and demanded money. The victim
informed that he had only Rs.4,000/- that too for medical expenses of his
mother who had been admitted in hospital. He further informed that, apart from
that amount, he had no money. Even then, the accused ridiculed him and
threatened him with dire consequences demanding money for liquor. Therefore,
in order to escape from their hands, the victim had run into bushes. However,
the accused had chased him and assaulted him with a liquor bottle on the back
of his head. Further, they stabbed him on his neck with a liquor bottle and
caused grievous injuries. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in
crime No.547 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341,
307 of IPC in respect of A1 and 294(b), 341, 307 r/w Sections 114 and 34 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
IPC in respect of A2. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed
final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had
examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Further, the prosecution
produced a material object, which was marked as M.O.1. On the side of the
accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of
the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found both the accused
guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341
& 307 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC, they
were sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, for Section 341
of IPC, they were sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and
for Section 307 of IPC, A1 was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo one month
rigorous imprisonment. Further, A2 was sentenced to undergo seven years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo
one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307
r/w 109 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused filed separate appeals
before the appellate court and in both the appeals, the appellate court confirmed
the order of conviction, however modified the sentence alone from seven years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
to three years. Aggrieved by the judgments of the appellate court, these criminal
revision cases have been filed by the accused persons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 in Crl.RC.No.726 of
2023 submits that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond any doubt.
There were contradictions between the injured witness and other witnesses.
Even according to the case of the prosecution, the first accused assaulted the
victim with an empty glass bottle on his neck and caused injuries. Therefore, the
petitioner/A2 was not present in the picture. Though PW1 deposed that at the
instigation of A2, the first accused assaulted him, it was not corroborated by any
other witness. PW1 to PW4 failed to identify the petitioner/A2. Further, the
victim sustained only simple injuries. The doctor, who treated him, was not
examined by the prosecution. Also, the prosecution failed to file discharge
summary to show what was the injury sustained by the victim and what was the
treatment given to him. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond any doubt. There was absolutely no motive for A2 to assault him. In
fact, PW1 deposed that the accused persons were not known to him. Further, the
prosecution failed to prove the scene of crime. According to Ex.P1, the scene of
crime is situated at least end of the street which starts from behind of the
Chettypalayam bus stop, but PW2 deposed that the scene of crime was near the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
forest. The accident register had been recorded as if PW1 was assaulted by an
unknown person. However, FIR shows the name of A2. Therefore, it is a
completely false case foisted as against A2. He further submitted that wound
certificate was issued by PW11. Though in the final opinion, the injury was
stated as 8x3x1 cm, but the doctor deposed that the same is 8x3x2 cm. Without
considering the above facts and circumstances, the trial court as well as the
appellate court mechanically convicted A2.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing
for the respondent submitted that the injured person was examined as PW1. The
eye witness to the occurrence was examined as PW4 and he corroborated the
evidence of PW1. After the occurrence, the wife of the PW3 informed the
Police. Thereafter, Police called ambulance and the victim was given first aid.
The doctor who examined the victim had deposed as PW11. He issued wound
certificate which was marked as Ex.P10. The injuries in the wound certificate
clearly corroborated the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the prosecution had
categorically proved the charges against the accused persons. As such, both the
trial court as well as the appellate court rightly convicted the petitioners.
6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused, all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
the materials placed before this Court.
7. According to the prosecution, both the accused persons waylaid the
victim by their two wheeler and asked for money to consume alcohol. Since the
victim was working in a Tasmac shop, the accused persons know him very well.
They also know very well that while the victim is returning to his home, he
possesses cash. Even after the request made by the victim, the accused asked for
money and as such, the victim escaped and started running towards bushes. The
accused chased him and attacked with a liquor bottle on the back of his head,
thereby he fell down and thereafter once again with a broken bottle, the accused
assaulted him on his neck. Therefore, both the accused persons with the
common intention to assault the victim, attacked him by liquor bottles.
Therefore, the prosecution rightly charged under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 of
IPC in respect of A1 and 294(b), 341, 307 r/w Sections 114 and 34 of IPC in
respect of A2. Both the accused persons abetted each other and committed
offence against the victim. Therefore, he fell down and there was huge loss of
blood. The victim was first seen by PW3. Thereafter, the victim was given first
aid and sent to hospital by ambulance. The doctor who had attended the victim
was examined as PWl1. When he was working as Assistant Surgeon at Tiruppur
Government General Hospital, he examined the victim and found the injury size
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
as 8x3x2 cm on his neck and also a cut injury on the back side of the head. He
issued wound certificate and the same was marked as Ex.P10. In his cross
examination, nothing was elicited and as such, the prosecution proved the
charges beyond any doubt. The minor contradictions between the prosecution
witnesses are not fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is no other
circumstances to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Therefore, both the
courts below rightly convicted the petitioners. In fact, the appellate court
reduced the sentence from seven years to three years considering the nature of
the injuries sustained by the victim. As such, this Court finds no grounds to
interfere with the order of conviction rendered by the trial court, which has been
confirmed by the appellate court.
8. In view of the above discussion, both the criminal revision cases
are dismissed.
30.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
To
1.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
2.The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
3.Inspector of Police,
Rural Police Station,
Nallur, Tiruppur
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 &731 of 2023
lok
Crl.R.C.Nos.726 & 731 of 2023
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 11:39:50 am )
