Madras High Court
Balakrishnan vs The State Rep. By Its on 30 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1538
Crl.A.No.685 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.685 of 2017
Balakrishnan ... Appellant/Accused
v.
The State Rep. by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Dhali Police Station,
Tiruppur.
(Crime No.4/2012) ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
against the conviction of the appellant/accused and sentence in S.C.No.112 of
2015 dated 23.10.2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimandram (FT Mahila Court), Tiruppur District, and set aside the conviction
and sentence and allow this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Sivaram
for M/S.S.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
Crl.A.No.685 of 2017
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Assisted by Mr.S.Arunpandi.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the
conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgement dated 23.10.2017 in
S.C.No.112 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.
2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that that the appellant and victim were
neighbours; that the appellant constructed a wall near the victim's house which
was not to the liking of the victim; that he had plastered the wall and then
whitewashed it; that when the victim questioned the appellant, a wordy quarrel
ensued between them; and that the appellant had attacked the victim in her left
thigh with a spear and caused injuries.
(ii) The victim was taking treatment at the hospital and on information, the
Sub Inspector of Police, PW.8, went to the hospital and recorded the complaint of
the victim and marked as Ex.P1. The complaint was registered as an F.I.R. in
Cr.No.4/2012 by PW.8 and marked as Ex.P6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
(iii) P.W.10 took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and handed
over the investigation to P.W.11, who in turn filed the final report for the offences
under Sections 307 and 294(b) I.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Udumalpet.
(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C., were complied with, and was committed to the Sessions Court, Tiruppur,
and was made over to the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Tiruppur, and tried in S.C.No.112/2015. The trial Court framed charges against
the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 of the IPC
and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.
(v) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to
P.W.11 and marked 10 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P10. When the accused was
questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked
any document on his side.
(vi) The trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case
beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty of the offence
under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
Offence under Section Sentence imposed
307 IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further RI for two
years.
The trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Sections 294(b)
of the IPC and acquitted him of the said offence. Hence, the accused has preferred
the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.
3. Heard, Mr.T.R.Sivaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side),
appearing for the respondent/State.
4. Mr T.R. Sivaram, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the
victim, who had been examined as PW.1, cannot be believed; that she had given a
false version, as she had prior enmity with the appellant on account of the dispute
with regard to the construction of the wall; that the injuries said to have been
sustained by her has not been established by the prosecution, as the doctor who
had examined and treated the victim was not examined; that the evidence of the
investigating officer would reveal that there was a wordy quarrel before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
occurrence and the accused himself was injured in the occurrence which was
suppressed by the prosecution, and therefore, the occurrence did not take place in
the manner alleged by the prosecution and prayed for acquittal.
5. Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the prosecution, per contra, submitted that P.W.1, the injured witness, is
trustworthy; that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve
her version; that the fact that she was injured in the occurrence has been
established as could be seen from the deposition of PW.1 and also the accident
register Ex.P4; that the accused has been named in Ex.P4; that the appellant had
not proved the nature of injuries sustained by him, and therefore, the non-
explanation of any alleged injury to the appellant would not be fatal to the
prosecution.
6. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. PW.1 is the
victim and the complainant; PW.2 is her husband; PW.3 is her son; PW.4 is the
resident who corroborated the versions of PW.1 to 3; PW.5 is the witness for
observation mahazar [Ex.P2] and rough sketch[Ex.P9]; PW.6 is the doctor who
had marked the accident register [Ex.P4] and treated the victim; PW.7 is the
witness to the mahazar for seizure of the dress materials of the victim [Ex.P5];
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
PW.8 is the Sub Inspector of police who recorded the complaint of the victim and
registered the F.I.R [Ex.P6].; PW.9 is the Assistant Director and Chemical
Examiner of Forensic Science laboratory, Coimbatore speaks about the blood stain
and the articles received and about the report given by him [Ex.P3]; PW.10 and
PW.11 are the Investigation Officers.
7. The prosecution case, therefore, rests on the evidence of PW.1 and the
evidence of PW.2 and 3, who came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry
of the victim, PW.1. PW.1 in her deposition stated about the manner of occurrence
and the injury caused by the appellant. On a careful perusal of the evidence, this
Court finds nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve her
version. Further, PW.2 and PW.3, who had come to the scene of occurrence on
hearing PW.1's cry, corroborated her version. There is also nothing on record to
disbelieve their version.
8. In fact, in her cross-examination, she stated that the occurrence had taken
place for nearly half an hour, and there was a quarrel prior to the occurrence
between the appellant and herself. PW.10, the investigation officer in the cross-
examination, admits that there was a prior quarrel between the attack made by the
appellant on the victim. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
submit that even assuming PW.1 is believed, the offence at best committed by the
appellant would be under Section 334 I.P.C. since there is evidence on record to
show that the hurt was caused pursuant to grave and sudden provocation. This
Court is of the view that the evidence only reveals that there was a quarrel
between the appellant and the victim and thus nothing to suggest there was grave
and sudden provocation warranting an attack. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the act of the appellant in causing the injuries on the victim has been
established by the prosecution.
9.The next question is as to what is the offence committed by the appellant.
The doctor PW.6 had stated that the victim sustained simple injury on her left
thigh. The fact that the attack was made on her leg and the nature of the injury
would reveal that there was no intention to cause the death of the victim. As the
doctor had opined that the victim had sustained a simple injury, this Court in the
facts of the case is of the view that the act of the appellant would constitute the
offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., and not under Section 307 I.P.C.
10.Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the
prosecution, had produced the incarceration certificate of the appellant. It reveals
that the appellant was in custody between 05.01.2012 and 02.02.2012 during
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
investigation and between 23.10.2017 to 27.12.2017 pending appeal before his
sentence was suspended by this Court. It is seen that the appellant has therefore
been in custody for nearly 96 days.
11.Therefore taking into consideration the injury sustained by the victim,
the fact that there was a wordy quarrel and there is an admission by PW.10 that the
appellant also sustained a simple injury, this Court is of the view that interest of
justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to period of sentence already
undergone for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. The fine imposed by the trial
Court is confirmed.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
30.06.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : yes/no
jrs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Dhali Police Station,
Tiruppur.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
jrs
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 05:27:15 pm )
