Madras High Court
S.Shanmugaraj vs The State Rep. By on 18 March, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2022
S.Shanmugaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Thalavai Police Station,
Ariyalur.
(Crime No.98 of 2018). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records passed by the learned Fast
Track Mahila Court at Ariyalur in Crl.Appeal.No.12 of 2021 on 04.03.2021
confirmed the conviction, sentence of imprisonment undergo under Section
324 of IPC in sentence of imprisonment undergo 1 years simple
imprisonment and under Section 2000/- and in default to undergo 1 month
simple imprisonment and under Section 326 of IPC in sentence of
imprisonment undergo 2 years simple imprisonment and fine Rs.5000/- and
Page No.1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.59 of 2022
in default to undergo 6 month simple imprisonment in C.C.No.225 of 2019
delivered by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at
Sendurai against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.SS.Pillai for Mr.K.Karthik
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment,
dated 19.11.2021 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2021 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court Mahila Court, Ariyalur (Lower Appellate Court)
confirming the judgment, dated 04.03.2021 in C.C.No.225 of 2019 passed
by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai (Trial
Court).
2.The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.225 of 2019 are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
Rank of the Charges Framed Conviction and Sentence
Accused
A1 For offence under Sections
294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC r/w Acquitted from all the charges.
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act, 1998.
A3 For offence under Sections Acquitted from the charge.
294(b) of IPC.
A2/ For offence under Sections 1. Convicted for offence under
Petitioner 294(b), 324, 326 & 506(ii) Section 324 of IPC and
of IPC r/w Section 4 of sentenced to undergo one year
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of imprisonment and to pay a fine
Harassment of Women Act, of Rs.2,000/-, in default to
1998. undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment.
2. Convicted for offence under
Section 326 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo two years
imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-, in default to
undergo six months Simple
Imprisonment.
3. The petitioner/A2 was directed
to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) as
compensation to the
injured/PW2.
4. Acquitted from the charges
under Sections 294(b) &
506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act,
1998.
3.Gist of the case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 and PW2 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
spouses and PW3 is their daughter. On 10.08.2018, at about 08.00 p.m,
when the defacto complainant's husband/PW2 standing near Kaliammal
Temple, one Ravichandran/A3 in this case shouted at PW2 using abusive
words. At that time, the defacto complainant/PW1 and her daughter/PW3,
who came that side to attend nature call, intervened and questioned
Ravichandran/A3 for using abusive words against PW2. At that time, A1
and the petitioner/A2 herein, the father and son, intervened and claimed
they only asked Ravichandran/A3 to abuse PW2 as to how PW2 claims
himself as “Nattamai” for a group. Thereafter, the petitioner took a wooden
log, which was there, assaulted PW2 on his left cheek and A1, the father of
the petitioner, pulled PW2 by his shirt. When the defacto complainant/PW1
and her daughter/PW3 intervened, both were pushed in the thorny bush and
the petitioner/A2 assaulted PW3 on her cheek and also pulled her dress and
PW2/injured fainted. On the intervention of the villagers, all the accused
left the scene. Immediately, PW2 and PW3 were taken to the Government
Hospital, Thittakudi through 108 Ambulance where the Doctor/PW8
examined them and referred PW2 to the Government Hospital, Perambalur
for taking scan and X-Ray. PW2 and PW3 had gone to Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
Hospital, Perambalur where PW2 took treatment as inpatient for 28 days
from 11.08.2018 to 08.09.2018.
4.On the complaint (Ex.P1) of PW1, PW9/Sub Inspector of Police
registered FIR (Ex.P6) in Crime No.98 of 2018 for offence under Sections
294(b), 324, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 1998, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared
Observation Mahazar, Rough Sketch (Ex.P7), examined the witnesses
present in the scene of occurrence and recorded their statements.
Thereafter, PW9 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Perambalur
recorded the statements of PW2, PW3 and the Doctor who gave treatment at
Perambalur Government Hospital and also recorded the statement of
PW8/Doctor at Government Hospital, Thittakudi, collected the medical
records (Exs.P3 to P5) and arrested the accused. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet filed before the Trial Court.
5.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, nine witnesses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
examined as PW1 to PW9 and seven documents marked as Exs.P1 to P7.
On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked.
On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner/A2 alone for
offence under Sections 324 & 326 of IPC as stated above and the same was
confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner,
defacto complainant/PW1, PW2 and their daughter/PW3 are all close
relatives and they have family dispute. In fact, PW1 to PW3 assaulted the
petitioner and two others, for which, the accused group lodged a complaint
and FIR in Crime No.99 of 2018 registered against PW1 to PW3 for offence
under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC, on completion of investigation, charge
sheet filed in S.T.C.No.94 of 2019 before the Trial Court. Since both the
cases are in the nature of case in counter, the Investigating Officer ought to
have found who is the aggressor and ought to have conducted the
investigation as per Police Standing Order 588A, but it has not done so. It
is admitted by PW1 to PW3 that there was push and pull and exchange of
blows between both groups. Due to which, PW2 and PW3 had a fall. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
injuries sustained by PW2 and PW3 are due to the fall and they are the
aggressors, who assaulted the petitioner and others in the counter case,
completely ignored by the Trial Court. PW1 admits that she does not know
to read or write and someone in the Police Station wrote the complaint
(Ex.P1), but in the complaint (Ex.P1) there is no reference the complaint
(Ex.P1) was on the dictation of PW1 and it was read over. According to the
petitioner, the defacto complainant/PW1 signed in a blank paper and the
respondent Police for their convenience, written the complaint (Ex.P1) to
suit the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the Observation
Mahazar attempted to be marked by PW6 who confirmed that he signed
Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) but does not know what is recorded in the
Observation Mahazar.
7.The learned counsel further submitted that PW4, PW5, PW6
projected eye witnesses, said to be present in the scene of occurrence, but
PW4 not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 stated that he was
present along with PW4 but PW4 not stated anything about PW5. PW5
admits that he does not know the earlier occurrence in which PW1 to PW3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
assaulted the petitioner and others but he speaks about the second
occurrence, which is highly artificial. Since it is a case in counter, both
occurrence should have taken place at the same time. Hence, the presence
of PW5 is doubtful. Though PW6 projected as eye witness to the
occurrence, he only speaks about the signature in the Observation Mahazar.
PW7 is a hearsay witness. Except the interested witnesses viz., PW1, PW2
and PW3, who are accused in the counter case, no other witnesses to prove
the prosecution case. PW8/Doctor attached to Primary Health Centre,
Thittakudi said to have examined PW2 and PW3 and issued Wound
Certificates (Exs.P3 & P4) of PW2 and PW3 and speaks about the
Discharge Summary (Ex.P5) of PW2. PW8 admits that he examined PW2
and PW3 and referred PW2 to the Government Hospital, Perambalur but the
Doctor who treated PW2 in the Government Hospital, Perambalur not
examined as witness, hence Exs.P3 to P5 cannot be stated to be proved in
the manner known to law.
8.He further submitted that though the petitioner was convicted for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
offence under Sections 324 & 326 of IPC, no X-Ray or Scan Report of the
injured/PW2 produced. Added to it, the Doctor who treated PW2 and PW3
in Government Hospital, Perambalur not examined and no explanation for
non-examination. In the Wound Certificates (Exs.P3 & P4), it is recorded
that the injured/PW2 and PW3 brought by one Mohan but the said Mohan
not examined as witness in this case. Thus, the Trial Court convicting the
petitioner merely on invoking Section 320 of IPC definition eight, since
PW2 took treatment for more than 20 days (11.08.2018 to 08.09.2018), the
injury is grievous, is not proper. In this case, there is nothing to show the
hurt sustained endangers the life of PW2 and he sustained severe bodily
pain. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1 to PW3 as regards
A1 and A3 and acquitted them. In such circumstances, the same benefit
ought to have extended to the petitioner. In view of the above, the judgment
of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
9.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
respondent Police filed counter and submitted that in this case on the
complaint (Ex.P1) of PW1, FIR (Ex.P6) registered in Crime No.98 of 2018
for offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 by PW9
against the petitioner/A2 and two others. The injured namely PW2 and
PW3 immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thittakudi where PW8
examined and issued the Wound Certificates (Exs.P3 & P4) of PW2 and
PW3 and Discharge Summary (Ex.P5) of PW2. The cut injury sustained by
PW2 on his left cheek and its swelling recorded in the Wound Certificate
(Ex.P3). Since the injury was in the nature of cut, for X-Ray and Scan, PW2
referred to the Government Hospital, Perambalur. PW8, the Doctor
confirmed PW2 was taken treatment as inpatient from 11.08.2018 to
08.09.2018 in the Government Hospital, Perambalur. In the discharge
summary (Ex.P5), the fracture to the left jaw bone, surgery undergone by
PW2 and a plate fixed for the fracture, all recorded. Likewise with regard to
the injury sustained by PW3, PW8 gives a report simple in nature. The
medical evidence confirmed that PW2 sustained grievous injuries and PW3
sustained simple injury. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 eye
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
witnesses to the occurrence, confirmed that the petitioner using the thorny
log attacked PW2 on his left cheek. Though the other witnesses namely
PW4, both PW5 and PW6 stated to be present in the scene of occurrence,
except for PW4, PW5 and PW6 supported the case of the prosecution. The
evidence of PW7 is in the nature of hearsay. The Investigating Officer/PW9
confirmed that the defacto complainant/PW1 immediately came to the
Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) and took up investigation,
visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar, Rough
Sketch (Ex.P7), examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, recorded
the statement of the Doctor/PW8, collected medical records (Exs.P3 to P5)
and filed the charge sheet before the Trial Court. The Trial Court on the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents had rightly convicted
the petitioner which is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, he
prays for dismissal of the revision.
10.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
11.In this case, the defacto complainant/PW1 and PW2 are spouses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
and PW3 is their daughter. The petitioner, defacto complainant/PW1, PW2
and PW3 all close relatives and their exitsted family dispute. PW2 and
PW3 are injured witnesses. On 10.08.2018, at about 08.00 p.m, when the
defacto complainant's husband/PW2 was standing near Kaliammal Temple,
one Ravichandran/A3 shouted at PW2 using abusive words. The defacto
complainant/PW1 and her daughter/PW3, who came that side to attend
natures call, intervened and questioned Ravichandran/A3 for using abusive
words. When PW2 questioned Ravichandran/A3, the petitioner/A2 and A1
who are father and son came there, confirmed the abuse is at their instance.
Then, the petitioner/A2 and A1 joined the abuse. Thereafter, there was
wordy altercation between both the groups. A1 pulled down PW2 by his
shirt and the petitioner/A2 using a thorny log, attacked PW2 on his left
cheek. PW1 and PW3, the mother and daughter, were pushed to a thorny
bush. Thereafter, there was exchange of blows by both the groups which
ensued into a case and counter case. For the present case, the Crime
Number is Crime No.98 of 2018 and the counter case registered at the
instance of the petitioner's group is Crime No.99 of 2018, both cases
investigation completed and charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
regards the counter case is concerned, the charge sheet filed in S.T.C.No.94
of 2019. In view of the same, the involvement of the petitioner and other
accused and PW1 to PW3 in exchange of blows and assault, cannot be
disputed.
12.Now, who is the aggressor is to be considered. It is seen that the
case faced by PW1 to PW3 is only for the offence under Sections 294(b) &
323 IPC which is not of serious in nature. PW2 sustained grievous injury
on his left cheek, his left jaw fractured, a plate implanted, all confirmed by
the Doctor/PW8 through the Discharge Summary (Ex.P5). Admittedly, in
this case, the Doctor who treated PW2 and PW3 at the Government
Hospital, Perambalur not examined as witness and there is no explanation
for non-examination. The Doctor/PW8 attached to the Government
Hospital, Thittakudi stated that he is not familiar with the signature and
writings of the Doctor who gave treatment to PW2 in Government Hospital,
Perambalur. In Discharge Summary (Ex.P5), it is seen that PW2 took
treatment as inpatient from 11.08.2018 to 08.09.2018. The Discharge
Summary (Ex.P5) being a public document, it cannot be discarded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
altogether. In view of the above, PW2 taking treatment for 28 days in
Government Hospital, Perambalur cannot be ignored. PW1 to PW3 and the
petitioner are close relatives and they had dispute since PW2 claims himself
as “Nattamai” of a group which ensued into wordy altercation and assault.
The injuries sustained by PW2 & PW3 recorded in the Wound Certificates
(Exs.P3 and P4). The Trial Court considering all these aspects convicted
the petitioner/A2 but acquitted A1 and A3 from all charges and acquitted
the petitioner from the charges under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC r/w
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
In view of the same, the aggressor to the assault not proved in this case.
13.Be that as it may, now the injuries sustained by PW2 who took
treatment around 28 days (11.08.2018 to 08.09.2018) in the Government
Hospital, Perambalur is proved by the Discharge Summary (Ex.P5). PW2
and PW3 immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Thittakudi and
the Wound Certificates (Exs.P3 & P4) issued by PW8, proved. Merely
producing the Wound Certificate (Ex.P3) of PW3 in the absence of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
other medical records, will not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for
offence under Section 324 IPC for the attack made on PW3. Hence, the
conviction and sentence for offecne under Section 324 IPC is set aside.
Fine amount if any paid shall be refunded to the petitioner.
14.As regards the injury sustained by PW2 and he taking treatment in
Government Hospital, Perambalur, are confirmed by the Wound Certificate
(Ex.P3) and the Discharge Summary (Ex.P5). Hence, the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 326 IPC is sustained
and confirmed.
15.It is seen that the petitioner along with his father Sigamani/A1 and
a known person Ravichandran/A3 were tried together during trial and the
Trial Court acquitted the other two accused (A1 & A3). It is also seen that
the petitioner and PW1 to PW3 are close relatives and neighbours and they
have dispute over sharing of common space. PW2's position as “Nattamai”
was questioned and both groups had heated abuse which ensued into push
and pull and assault, hence a case and counter case registered. Since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
entire fight broke out after heated exchange of words, the attack was not
premeditated. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to modify the
sentence of imprisonment imposed for offence under Section 326 of IPC
against the petitioner.
16.Considering the above and the period already undergone by the
petitioner for 27 days and now the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of
Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the injured/PW2, this Court modifies the
sentence of two years imprisonment imposed for offence under Section 326
of IPC to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
17.It is seen that as per the judgment of the Trial Court, the petitioner
already directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) as compensation to the injured/PW2. In addition to it, now
the petitioner to deposit another Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) as compensation to the injured/PW2. In total, the deposited
amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in the credit of
C.C.No.225 of 2019 before the Trial Court to be paid as compensation to
the injured/PW2 on filing of any petition in this regard. The respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
Police is directed to inform PW2/Varadharajan, son of Arunachalam about
his entitlement.
18.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part with
modification.
18.03.2025
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Sendurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thalavai Police Station,
Ariyalur.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
18.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 07:20:10 pm )
