Arjunan vs State Rep. By
2025 Latest Caselaw 3439 Mad

Madras High Court

Arjunan vs State Rep. By on 3 March, 2025

Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup

Crl. Appeal No. 307 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03-03-2025

Coram :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2017

---

1. Arjunan

2. Pushpa @ Jaya

3. Senthil

4. Anbu .. Appellants

Versus

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District .. Respondent

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants (A-1 to A-4) passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram in S.C.No.291 of 2015 dated 31.05.2017 and acquit them from all the charges.

                  For Appellants                                 :         Mr. J. Antony James
                  For Respondent                                 :         Mrs. G.V. Kashthuri
                                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                           JUDGMENT
                                               ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

The Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 have preferred the instant Criminal

Appeal questioning the correctness and validity of the judgment dated

31.05.2017 passed in S.C. No. 291 of 2015 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.

2. The brief facts, which are relevant for disposal of this Criminal

Appeal, are as follows:

2.1. The case of the Prosecution is that the deceased in this case is

Andal. She is a resident of Paranthanthangal Village, within the jurisdiction of

Sathiyamangalam Police Station. The deceased Andal was residing along with

her husband Desingh who was a fortune teller. The Accused in this case are

residing just opposite to the house of the deceased. On 25.04.2014, some

people who had came to the house of the deceased Andal to seek the help of

her husband Desingh/fortune teller, were alleged to have plucked mangoes

from the Mango tree within the compound of the opposite house. Irked by the

same, the family members residing in the opposite house of the deceased are

alleged to have picked up quarrel with those persons who visited the house of

the deceased to seek fortune teller's help. Subsequently, the quarrel intensified

between the members of the opposite house family as they have alleged to have

scolded the husband of the deceased Desingh/fortune teller with filthy words.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

The deceased, as wife of the fortune teller, asked them as to why they are using

harsh and abusive words against her husband and thus, enemity had developed

between the parties. While so, on 27.04.2014 at about 6.30 a.m, when the

deceased, wife of fortune teller was putting ''kolam'' in front of her house, the

persons who are residing opposite house, picked up quarrel and came to the

house of the deceased Andal, pulled her hair and kicked on her stomach and

she cried in pain and became unconscious. Therefore, her husband Desingh

took her to Government Hospital, Gingee, from where she was referred to

Government Medical College, Villupuram Mundiyampakkam for better

treatment. However, inspite of treatment given for two days, the deceased

died. The husband of the deceased i.e., Desingh/fortune teller had preferred a

complaint against the family members of the opposite house for the death of

his wife. Based on the complaint given by her husband a case was registered by

the Sathiyamangalam Police against the family members residing just opposite

house of the deceased in Cr.No.38 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC. Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by husband of the deceased Andal. Ex.P-7

is the First Information Report.

2.2. On receipt of a copy of the FIR in Ex.P-7, P.W-10 – Inspector of

Police proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared observation Mahazer

under Ex.P-6, Rough Sketch under Ex.P-8 in the presence of witnesses Jothi-

P.W-6 and on Sokkanathan.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               P.W-10
                                        ( Uploaded         gave 05:36:06
                                                   on: 13/03/2025 a request
                                                                         pm ) letter to the duty Medical

Officer to conduct post mortem over the body of the deceased Andal through

Police Constable-Selvakumar. The Inspector of Police-P.W-10 also conducted

inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayadar and

witnesses and the report prepared by him under Ex.P-9. P.W-10, in the course

of his investigation, examined Arjunan-P.W-4, Pasumalai, Ayyasamy, Mani

and Sakthivel and recorded their statements. He arrested Accused 1 to 3 near

Alampundi bus stop and sent them to judicial custody with requisition letter to

learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee for their remand. He then proceeded to the

place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses P.W-2-

Sathyaseelan, P.W-7-Selvi, P.W-3-Kasthuri, P.W-6-Jothi and P.W-5-

Dr.Gitanjali. P.W-10 also recorded the statement of Dr. Gitanjali P.W-5 and

he also recorded the statement of Scientific Officer of Forensic Department

Thiru. Raju and Selvakumar- Police Constable who had identified the body of

the deceased to the Doctor and received that body after post-mortem. After

completion of the investigation, P.W-10 laid the final report before the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

2.3. On receipt of the final report along with relevant records, the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee had taken the case on file as P.R.C. No. 15

of 2015 for the offences under Section 452 & 302 of IPC. The copies of the

final report were furnished to the Accused persons under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Since the offence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis underon:Section ( Uploaded 302 IPC 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm ) is triable by the Court of

Sessions, the case was made over to the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Villupuram. The Accused were also bound over to the said Court.

2.4. On receipt of the case records, the learned Principal Sessions

Judge, Villupuram taken it on file and numbered it as S.C. No. 291 of 2015. On

the point of jurisdiction, since the deceased was a women, the case was made

over to the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Villupuram, for disposal as per law. On summons, the Accused persons

appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Villupuram. After hearing the Prosecution and the defence, the learned

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram framed charges against

the Accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and the charges were

read over and explained to the Accused 1 to 4. However, the Accused denied

the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered.

2.5. During the trial, to prove the charges the Prosecution examined 11

witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-11 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10.

On the side of defence one witness was examined as D.W-1 and marked two

documents as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.

2.6. P.W.1-Desingh had deposed regarding the occurrence and the

lodging of the complaint under Ex.P-1. P.W.2-Sathiyaselan son of P.W-1,

Desingh and the son of the deceased Andal deposed regarding the occurrence

and preferring of complaint https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by his ( Uploaded father P.W-1 on: 13/03/2025 Desingh.

05:36:06 pm ) P.W-3-Kasthuri and

P.W-4-Arjunan had also deposed regarding occurrence. P.W-5 Dr.Gitanjali had

deposed regarding the post mortem performed on the body of the deceased and

issuance of the post mortem certificate under Ex.P-3. P.W-7-Selvi and P.W.8-

Raju remained hostile. P.W.9-Selvakumar Police Constable who accompanied

the body of the deceased and P.W.10-Palani Inspector of Police had deposed

regarding the registration of FIR and investigation conducted by him.

2.7. After the Prosecution evidence was closed, Accused 1 to 4 were

examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C regarding incriminating evidence

available by way of Prosecution witnesses. The Accused 1 to 4 denied the

incriminating evidence against them and stated that they have evidence to

prove their innocence. The Accused examined Dr. Daranendran as D.W-1 who

was serving as Doctor at Government Medical College, Villupuram at

Mundiyampakkam who treated the deceased. It is through his evidence the

Death Certificate of the deceased was marked as Ex.D-1 and the treatment

details given to the deceased was marked as Ex.D-2.

2.8. After evidence of the defence was closed, the learned Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram heard the arguments of the

Prosecution and the defence. After completion of the arguments, on perusal of

the materials available before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila

Court, Villupuram, by judgment dated 31.05.2017, convicted the Accused 1 to

4 for the offence under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded325 r/w Section on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 34 pm ) of IPC and sentenced them

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-

each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. However, they

were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2.9. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction imposed on the Accused

1 to 4 under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the Accused 1 to 4 have filed

this Appeal, challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that

there is no evidence made available against the Appellants-Accused for having

committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that

the death was not caused due to the conduct of the Accused. The learned trial

Judge, on a consideration of the Prosecution evidence, did not accept the theory

of the Prosecution that the Accused had caused the death of the deceased.

However, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram

erroneously convicted the Accused only under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of

IPC without any legally acceptable evidence.

4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the

Appellants/Accused 1 to 4( Uploaded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that the learned05:36:06 on: 13/03/2025 Sessions pm ) Judge, Fast Track Mahila

Court, Villupuram, during the framing of charges, had framed charge only for

the offence under Section 302 IPC. Based on the framing of charges, the

learned Counsel for the Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 had cross-examined the

witnesses only regarding the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, on appreciation

evidence may have acquitted the Accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

However, without any evidence, merely based only on the post mortem report

under Ex.P-4 and interested deposition of P.W-1-husband of the deceased and

P.W-2 son of the deceased, the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that the

offence under Section 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC is made out. The learned

Counsel for the Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 invited the attention of this Court to

the deposition of P.W-1-husband of the deceased Andal and P.W-2 son of

P.W-1. In their cross examination, both of them admitted that they were not

available in the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Therefore, they

are not eyewitness, but still, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila

Court, Villupuram, relied on their deposition to convict the Accused. Except

P.W-5 Dr.Gitanjali who conducted the post mortem, the other Doctors have not

spoken about the injury in the abdomen of the deceased. The Doctors who

treated the deceased at the time when she was undergoing treatment, had not

stated anything regarding the injury caused in her abdomen. While so, without

any material available, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis learned ( Uploaded Sessions on: 13/03/2025 Judge, 05:36:06 pm ) Fast Track Mahila Court,

Villupuram, had convicted the Appellant/Accused for the offence under

Section 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In any event, without even framing a

charge under Sections 325 and 326 IPC convicting the Appellants-Accused for

the offence under Section 325 read with 34 of IPC is not proper. In this

context, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 relied upon the

following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the proposition of law

that when the Accused committing grave charge had been acquitted on the

ground that Prosecution has not proved the case against them, convicting them

for the lesser offence without framing a charge is not legally sustainable.

5. In the case of Shamnsaheb M.Multtani vs. State of Karnataka

reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 358 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as follows:

“But where the case of an Accused is called upon to defend only a charge under Section 302 IPC, the burden of proof never shifts on to him. It ever remains on the Prosecution which has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a case the Accused can wait till the Prosecution evidence is over and then to show that the Prosecution has failed to make out the said offence against him. No compulsory presumption would go to the assistance of the Prosecution in such a situation. If that be so, when an Accused has no notice of the offence under Section 304B IPC, as he was defending a charge under Section 302 IPC alone, would it not lead to a grave miscarriage of justice when he is alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to the serious punishment prescribed thereunder, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judisbecause he is deprived of on:

( Uploaded the13/03/2025 opportunity to) disprove the burden 05:36:06 pm

cast on him by law.”

6. Per contra, Mrs. G. V. Kasthuri, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, had vehemently objected to the

submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Accused 1 to 4 by stating

that there are sufficient evidence to show that P.W-1-husband of the deceased

Andal, P.W-2 – son of the deceased Andal were present in the place and time

of occurrence. It was they who had taken the deceased, who suffered

consciousness loss, after they were kicked in the abdomen by the inmates of

the opposite house, to the hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-

2 is supported by the medical evidence through the Doctor who performed

autopsy on the deceased.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the following

Ruling to contend that if the charges framed by the Court had not been not

proved and the Court could not convict the Accused under Section 302 IPC

r/w Section 34 of IPC instead the Court can convict the Accused for lesser

offence under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC even though a charge has not been

framed. In any event, there are sufficient materials available to show that the

Accused have caused injury to the deceased. P.W-5-Dr.Gitanjali has stated

that there was blood in the abdomen, particularly in the walls of the alimentary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

canal. Therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila

Court, Villupuram, are based on materials and this appeal lacks merits and is

to be dismissed.

Point for consideration:

Whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram in S.C.No.291 of 2015, dated 31.05.2017 convicting the Accused 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 325 r/s. Section 34 of the IPC is to be set aside as perverse?

8. Heard Mr. J. Antony James, learned Counsel for the Appellants

and Mrs. G. V. Kasturi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

Respondent. Perused the deposition of the Prosecution Witnesses P.W-1 to

P.W-11 and documents marked on the side of Prosecution as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10

and the defence witnesses as D.W-1 and the documents marked on the side of

defence as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-2 and also the judgment of the learned Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram in S.C.No. 291 of 2015, dated

31.05.2017.

9. P.W-1 Desingh is the husband of the deceased Andal. P.W-2

Sathiyaselan is the son of the deceased Andal. As per the Prosecution case, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

P.W-1 is a fortune teller. Some people who had visited the house of P.W-1 to

meet him and at that time, it is alleged that they have plucked mangoes from

the house of the Accused A-1 to A-4, which is opposite to the house of P.W-1.

Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel ensued between the visitors and the

Accused 1 to 4. The Accused 1 to 4 during such quarrel abused P.W-1 and his

wife the deceased. On 27.04.2014 by morning between 6 and 6.30 a.m. when

she was cleaning her front yard and putting Kolam, the Accused 1 to 4 alleged

to have abused her. She responded by stating that for the mangoes plucked by

the visitors, she will pay the Accused. Enraged, the Accused alleged to have

pulled her by her hair and kicked her on the abdomen and she fell down. She

was taken to Government Hospital, Gingee and discharged. Again she was

taken to Gingee hospital in the evening. By this time, the hospital authorities

referred her to Villupuram Government Medical College Hospital at

Mundiampakkam where she died on 28.04.2014. Therefore, P.W-1 Desingh

preferred complaint under Ex.P-1 based on which FIR under Ex.P-7 was

registered by P.W-12 who proceeded with the investigation by visiting the

place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch under Ex.P-8 and Observation

Mahazar under Ex.P-6. He also visited the Villupuram Government Medical

College Hospital mortuary, conducted inquest over the dead body of the

deceased and prepared the inquest report under Ex.P-9 in the presence of

Panchayatdars – Munusamy, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pachayappan, ( Uploaded Shankar, on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm ) Mari and Venkatesan.

10. P.W-1 had stated that he did not write the complaint under Ex.P-1

and he does not know who had written it. He does not know the contents of

the complaint under Ex.P-1. The occurrence, as stated in the Ex.P-1, was

narrated by P.W-1 Desingh in his examination in chief. In his cross

examination, he had stated that at the time of admission in the Hospital, he had

not mentioned the fact that the injured wife who was alive at the time of

admission in the hospital, was attacked by the Accused 1 to 4. Also he had not

given complaint immediately after the occurrence. Also he had admitted in his

cross examination that at the time of alleged occurrence, in the place of the

occurrence, in front of his house, if he was available, he too might have

suffered injuries. Similarly, the son of P.W-1 and the deceased, P.W-2

Sathyaselan also narrated the incident as was narrated by P.W-1. In his cross

examination also, he had admitted that if he had been present in the scene of

occurrence, he too might have been injured. Therefore, these two admissions

made it clear that they were not available in the place of occurrence at the time

of occurrence. Therefore, the reliance placed on the evidence of P.W-1 and

PW2, to convict the Appellants-Accused cannot be sustained.

11. The suggestion of the learned Counsel for the defence that the

Accused 1 to 4 are also fortune https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploadedtellers and 05:36:06 on: 13/03/2025 there had pm ) been rivalries between the

two fortune tellers residing in the same street cannot be ignored. It is stated by

the Counsel for the Appellants that there had been complaint and counter

complaint among the Appellants and P.W-1 before the very same Police

Station and ultimately it entered into a compromise. However, taking

advantage of the death of the deceased due to some ailment suffered by her,

P.W-1 has given the complaint against the Appellants by suppressing the

complaint and counter-complaint given on the previous day.

12. The postmortem of the deceased was done by P.W-5-Dr.Gitanjali

and she opined that the death of the deceased might have been caused by

internal bleeding in the internal organs around abdominal area as bleeding was

observed on the walls of the alimentary canal (Intestines). The Postmortem

report of P.W-5 was marked as Ex.P-4. She had opined under Ex.P-5 that the

deceased would have appeared to have died due to the effects of blunt injuries

to the abdomen. However, the evidence of Dr. Thagore P.W-11 indicates that

he had admitted the deceased while she was alive and he had noted that there

was no visible injuries when she was admitted in the hospital. During

interrogation, she had stated that she was attacked by five people and she

suffered pain in her neck and back. However, there was no visible injuries

noticed. He had given first aid and admitted her in the ward. He had issued

Ex.P-10.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.W-11 Dr.Thagore ( Uploaded had deposed on: 13/03/2025 evidence 05:36:06 pm ) on behalf of another

Doctor by name Dr.Indira, based on her recording in the hospital records at

Government Hospital, Gingee. He had deposed evidence stating that Dr.Indira

had admitted her by noting her injuries on the basis of the statement of the

injured woman that she suffered injuries due to attack by four persons and she

suffered pain in her neck and back. The Accident Register recorded by the

duty Doctor Dr.Indira on whose behalf P.W-11 Dr.Thagore had deposed

evidence was marked as Ex.P-10. Therefore, after Prosecution evidence was

closed, the Accused has summoned the Doctor who treated the injured woman

when she was alive and marked the document under Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.

Ex.D-1 is the death certificate issued on the death of the deceased. Ex.D-2 is

the treatment details. Dr. Daranendran was examined as D.W-1. As per his

evidence, the injured woman was admitted by 9.51 p.m. on 27.04.2014. She

was aged 42 years and she was drowsy and tired as per the person who

accompanied her she had dysentery and vomiting. The stools contained blood.

By 12.45 p.m. intervening night on 27/28.04.2014 she died. D.W-1 was cross-

examined on behalf of the Prosecution. The suggestion of the Prosecution is

that if the injured was attacked by bare hands on her abdominal area, she would

have suffered the symptoms as stated by D.W-1 but he had stated that those

things were not available when he examined her. The Doctor who had

conducted postmortem had observed bleeding in the internal organs around

abdominal area and had (opined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that Uploaded on: she 05:36:06 13/03/2025 suffered pm ) death due to injury in the

internal organs. D.W-1 was recalled by the learned Judge and questions were

put to him by the Court to confirm that the deceased died due to internal injury.

Therefore, the trial Court had instead of convicting the Accused for the offence

under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC had convicted the Accused for the lesser offence

of 325 r/w. 34 IPC.

13. The person who accompanied the injured to the hospital was

Mr.Venkatesan, as per the medical records available with the Gingee

Government Hospital for which P.W-11 was examined. The said Venkatesan

was not examined as a witness before the Court. At the first instance, Dr.Indira

who had seen the injured had recorded that the injured woman narrated that she

was attacked by 4 persons. The said Dr.Indira was not examined as she was

not available. Therefore, the Doctor who worked in the same hospital and who

is an associate of Dr.Indiara had deposed evidence on behalf of Dr.Indira as

P.W-11 and he had stated that the injured had mentioned about the injury on

her body. The same is corroborated by Dr.P.W-5 Gitanjali who had performed

autopsy on the body of the deceased and found internal bleedings in the organs

of the deceased. Under those circumstances, the evidence of D.W-1 is to be

rejected. The evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 is found cogent. A person aged

about 42 years died as per the evidence of Doctor who treated her as she was

said to be tired and drowsy, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis shows ( Uploaded she lost05:36:06 on: 13/03/2025 blood. pm ) The postmortem by P.W-5

Dr.Gitanjali indicates that there was internal bleedings inside her digestive

system. The deceased is appeared to have died due to the blunt injuries in the

abdominal area.

14. The ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that as

per the principles of fair trial, the Accused was not put on notice regarding

altered charge under Section 325 r/w. 34 of IPC will not hold good as in the

reported ruling it was a case of 302 of IPC which was altered by the Court after

appreciation of evidence at the stage of judgment of conviction, convicting the

Accused for the offence under Section 304(b) of IPC. Here, it is a lesser

offence under Section 325 of IPC. It is not a grave charge as 302 r/w. 34 of

IPC. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the

conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Villupuram in S.C.No. 291 of 2015, dated 31.05.2017 is perverse and is to be

set aside cannot be accepted and hence, the same is rejected. Therefore, the

conviction under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC is found to be not perverse.

However, instead of sentencing the Accused, this Court modifies the sentence

of imprisonment and released the Appellants on probation of good conduct for

a period of five years.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis   As rightly pointed    out
                                               ( Uploaded     by the learned
                                                          on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pmAdditional
                                                                                    )          Public Prosecutor

there was enough materials available before the trial Court through the

evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-5 and P.W-11 regarding the injuries suffered

by the deceased, who died without responding to the treatment because of the

injuries suffered by her in her internal organs. Therefore, the submission of the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor is found reasonable.

16. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is

answered in favour of the Prosecution and against the Accused. The judgment

of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram in

S.C.No.291 of 2015 dated 31.05.2017 convicting the Accused 1 to 4 for

offence under Sections 325 r/s. Section 34 of the IPC is found proper and the

conviction is to be confirmed. However, the sentence alone is to be modified.

In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of

conviction made on 31.05.2017 in S.C. No. 297 of 2015 alone is confirmed and

the sentence is modified. The Appellants are directed to be released on

probation on good conduct, if there are no other criminal case pending against

them. The discretion is to be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, based on the report of the Regional Probation

Officer. On such probation each of the Accused shall deposit Rs.50,000/- as

compensation to the victim/P.W-1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: and P.W-2.

13/03/2025 05:36:06The pm ) amount so deposited shall

be disbursed equally to P.W-1 and P.W-2 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Mahila Court, Villupuram before releasing Accused 1 to 4 on probation.

Also, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram shall

warn the Accused-1 to 4 that if they indulge in any offence, the probation will

be cancelled and the Accused shall undergo the period of imprisonment as per

the judgment in S.C. No. 297 of 2015, dated 31.05.2017.

03-03-2025 vsn/srm Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras, Chennai – 600 104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J

vsn/srm

Judgment made in

03-03-2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 05:36:06 pm )