Madras High Court

Rajaram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 19 November, 2025

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                                               Crl.RC.No.89 of 2025
                                                                                          and Crl.R.C.No.295 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated : 19.11.2025

                                                           CORAM

                         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                           Crl.R.C.Nos.89 and 295 of 2025

                 In Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2025:-

                 Rajaram                                                              ...Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
                 The Inspector of Police,
                 Mettupalayam Police Station                                          ...Respondent

                 In Crl.R.C.No.295 of 2025:-

                 Shanmugam                                                            ...Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                 The State Represented by
                 The Inspector of Police,
                 Mettupalayam,
                 Coimbatore.                                                          ...Respondent
                 PRAYER in Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2025: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 438
                 r/w 442 of the BNSS Act, pleased to call for the records pertaining to the
                 impugned judgment dated 18.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2022 passed


                 1/16



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )
                                                                                            Crl.RC.No.89 of 2025
                                                                                       and Crl.R.C.No.295 of 2025

                 by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the
                 judgment dated 15.10.2022 in S.C.No.115 of 2015 passed by the learned
                 Assistant Sessions Judge, Subordinate Court, Mettupalayam and set aside the
                 same.


                 PRAYER in Crl.R.C.No.295 of 2025: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 397
                 and 401 of Cr.P.C. / Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS Act, pleased to set aside the
                 judgment of the learned I Additional District Sessions Court, Coimbatore, in
                 Crl.A.No.124 of 2022 dated 18.12.2024 against S.C.No.115 of 2015 on the file of
                 the learned Subordinate Court Judge, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore, in Cr.No.695 of
                 2013.
                 In Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2025:-
                       For Appellant                           :   Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan
                       For Respondent                          :   Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                 In Crl.R.C.No.295 of 2025:-

                           For Appellant                       :   Mr.C.D.Johnson
                           For Respondent                      :   Mr.S.Sugendran
                                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                   COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revision petitions are filed aggrieved by the judgment

dated 15.10.2022 made in S.C.No.115 of 2015 by the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, Mettupalayam and the judgments dated 18.12.2024 made in C.A.No.129

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

of 2022 and C.A.No.124 of 2022 by the First Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Coimbatore.

2.By the said judgment, the trial Court found the first accused guilty of an

offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo two years simple

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months

simple imprisonment and the second accused found guilty of offence under

Section 324 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and to undergo six months simple imprisonment

and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to undergo three months simple

imprisonment.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2013, upon receipt of

information P.W.6 / Suresh Kumar, the Special Inspector of Police went to the

hospital where P.W.1 was undergoing treatment as inpatient and a statement was

made to the effect that on 22.09.2013, at about 6.30 p.m. when he proceeded from

his house in his moppet TVS 50 bearing registration No.TN 38 K 1399 carrying

milk to the Vellipalayam Milk Society and after delivering the milk when he was

returning home near the plantain ( njhg;g[ ) of one Dhanapal, his cousins Rajaram

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

and Shanmugam (accused herein) on account of the previous enmity relating to ¾

acre of land belonging to his grand-father and enraged by the fact that the

complainant filed a civil suit accosted him and abused him in a filthy language

with sexual overtones and the accused Rajaram threw mud on his face and the

accused Shanmugam with the Koduval he was holding inflicted a cut injury on

the rear side of his head and also on the left arm and on the nose. At that time, one

Somasundaram was passing by after rearing his goats. At the same time his

mother was also coming there as she was proceeding to the shop. Upon seeing

them, the accused Shanmugam dropped the Koduval and threatened that he will

kill P.W.1 and both the accused ran away from the scene. Thereafter, when he

went home he was brought to the hospital and he is taking treatment as an in-

patient.

4.On the strength of the said allegations, a case in Cr.No.695 of 2013 was

registered for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) of

I.P.C. P.W.8 completed the investigation and filed a final report proposing the

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 307 of I.P.C. Upon the

charges being framed the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. In order to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the complainant / injured

witness Magendran as P.W.1. The said Somasundaram who was coming that way

along with his goats and who witnessed the incident was marked as P.W.2. One

Ayyasamy who saw the P.W.1 coming with the bleeding injury and enquired him

whether he fell down from the vehicle to which the injured witness shed him an

information that the accused Shanmugam had inflicted cut injuries on him was

examined as P.W.3. One Gopalan was examined as P.W.4. He was the witness to

the observation Mahazar. One doctor Lakshmana Kumar who treated the P.W.1

and issued wound certificate was examined as P.W.5. Suresh Kumar, the Special

Inspector of Police who went to the hospital and recorded the statement and

thereafter registered the First Information Report was examined as P.W.6. One

Thangavel, the Sub Inspector of Police who initially took up the case for

investigation was examined as P.W.7. Veerapandi, the Sub Inspector of Police

who completed the investigation and laid final report for the offences under

Section 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii), 392 r/w 294 (b), 307 of I.P.C. was examined as

P.W.8. He admits that Section 392 was wrongly typed. On behalf of the

prosecution, Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and also M.O.1 were marked.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

5.Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence and material

circumstances on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, both the accused examined

themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were also marked. The

trial Court considered the case of the parties from the evidence of P.W.1, the

injured witness and the eye witness P.W.2 coupled with the corroborating medical

evidence held that the offence under Section 324 is proved against the first

accused Shanmugam and found the second accused guilty of the offences under

Section 324 read with 109 of I.P.C sentenced as under. The trial Court found that

the charge under Section 294 (b) was not proved beyond doubt.

6.Aggrieved thereby both the accused filed appeals in Crl.A.No.129 of

2022 and Crl.A.No.124 of 2022 by separate but identical judgments the appellate

Court dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction and the sentence against

the accused. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed

the conviction. Aggrieved by which the present Revision cases are filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

7.Mr.Johnson, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first accused

by pointing out to the cross examination of P.W.1 would submit that it can be seen

that a civil dispute with reference to the property is pending between the parties

and therefore there is motive on the part of P.W.1 to implicate the accused in a

criminal case so as to coerce him with reference to the property dispute. As a

matter of fact the defence that is taken on behalf of the first accused is that it is

only the P.W.1 who picked up a quarrel and was an aggressor and in an inebriated

condition he went near the vehicle to pick a rod to attack the accused. However

fell down and as such the injuries on either side of his head was on account of he

falling down on the vehicle and thereafter on the floor. As a matter of fact, the

initial reaction of P.W.3 in enquiring the P.W.1 whether he fell down from the

vehicle would itself corroborate the said version of the defence. Further, if the

accused had only attacked it was impossible for the injuries to have been afflicted

in the back side of the head and also on the front side of the head and on the nose.

The medical evidence shows lacerated injury alone on the nose. Therefore, it

would only point out more towards P.W.1 falling down on the earth and getting

hurt by himself. In any event, he would submit that P.W.1 / Mahendran was cross

examined in detail where he has categorically admitted that in the connected civil

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

suit he has taken a stand that Shanmugam was not even the son of Ponammal.

While in the civil suit it is contended by P.W.1 that Shanmugam is not the son of

Ponammal for the purpose of a criminal case only to ascertain the motive he

admits before the Criminal Court that the Shanmugam is the son of Ponamal and

he is contesting the land dispute. Therefore, P.W.1 is not a person to be believed

and therefore granting the benefit of doubt the accused has to be acquitted.

8.The learned counsel appearing appearing on behalf of the second accused

Rajaram would submit that the second accused was not even in the scene of

occurrence. Only because he is employed, to wreak vengeance, he has been

falsely implicated in the case. Even as per the prosecution P.W.3 is the person

who had seen them immediately. P.W.3 categorically deposes that the accused told

him that Shanmugam has attacked him. The injured witness did not mention the

name of the Rajaram/second accused to P.W.3. Many of the other statements also

would clearly bring to light that Rajaram was not in the picture and was added as

an after thought. In this regard it must be seen that the complaint itself was given

one day later and therefore there was ample time for the accused to imaginate and

embellish and include the second accused in the whole episode. Even the Doctor

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

was cross examined and he had answered that he did not witness any mud on the

injuries or on the face of the P.W.1. The only allegation that is made is that the

second accused had thrown mud on the face of the P.W.1. It can be seen even the

motive was only with reference to the second accused and that of the injured

witness.

9.Per contra, Mr.Sugendran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit that even as per the defence, there was previous enmity between the

parties. The civil suit is going on. Therefore, P.W.1 has categorically deposed that

on account of the said enmity the accused had waylaid him and abused him and

also attacked only for want of corroboration, the verbal abuse was disbelieved.

However, with reference to the attack the medical evidence categorically

corroborates the version of P.W.1 and the eye witness P.W.2. As a matter of fact,

the Doctor was cross examined in detail and the Doctor has categorically

answered that the injuries on the person of P.W.1 can happen only upon attack by

the objects such as M.O.1. The doctor has categorically denied the suggestion that

such injuries happened by falling down also. The injury is a cut injury and

categorically demonstrates attack by the weapon. The weapon was also seized

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

from the spot by the Police. By all these evidences the prosecution has proved the

charge beyond doubt and there is nothing for this Court to interfere in the

exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. Both the trial Court and Appellate Court have

appraised the evidence on merits and have rendered a finding.

10.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused

the material records.

11.In this case it is essential to consider the motive between the parties.

From the cross examination of the injured witness P.W.1, it is clear that there was

a piece of land which was owned by the grand father of the first accused

Shanmugam namely Palaniappa Mudaliar. Palaniappa Mudaliar had only two

daughters and therefore during his lifetime it is claimed by P.W.1 that he had

executed a Will in favour of his father Thangavel as Thangavel was the brother's

son of Palaniappa Mudaliar. Even during the lifetime of his father Thangavel in

derogation of the Will have come into force. The mother of the accused namely

Ponammal and her husband had sold the subject matter land to third parties and as

such P.W.1 / Magendran has filed civil suit claiming title over the property and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

the same is said to be pending. This categorically demonstrates the previous

enmity between the parties.

12.When the injuries on the person has been categorically explained even

at the earliest point of time in the AR copy as being caused by known accused

persons by sharp objects, the Doctor has categorically deposed that the injuries

are of such nature that they are cut injuries and it could have been caused by MO1

Koduval. When on behalf of the accused side, the Doctor was tried to be cross

examined by putting a cross to him that such injuries can also happen if the P.W.1

had fallen down or hit against his vehicle etc., the same was categorically denied

by the Doctor. P.W.2 also corroborates the same. He has categorically spoken that

it is the first accused / Shanmugam who attacked Magendran with his Koduval.

Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has done enough to prove that the

injuries in the person was caused by the first accused and he had also deposed

that Rajaram was also present along with Shanmugam. Therefore, it is also

proved that from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the second accused was

also present on the spot aiding and abetting the first accused. However, the trial

Court as well as the first Appellate Court had failed to consider an aspect as per

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

the version of P.W.2, he did not witness the entire episode from the beginning. He

suddenly heard the scream of the P.W.1 and thereafter only, he turned around and

saw the attack is being carried out and he deposes about the incident. Therefore,

except P.W.1 there is nobody else to speak about the fact as to how the entire

altercation had begun. As a matter of fact, the P.W.1 in his cross examination has

categorically admitted that in the civil suit he has claimed that Shanmugam is not

the son of Ponnammal.

13.The case of the accused is that, it is only the P.W.1 who was in

inebriated condition and was picking up the quarrel. Therefore, in the context of

the case and considering the relationship between the parties and the enmity

between the parties and where a civil suit is already going on and P.W.1 was

taking a stand that Shanmugam was not the son of Ponnamal; P.W.1 questioning

about his birth and legitimacy and causing grave provocation to Shanmugam

cannot be ruled out. When such grave provocation had come, it is possible that

the accused could have reacted in the manner as portrayed by the prosecution.

14.In view thereof, I am of the view that the conviction of the trial Court as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

confirmed by the appellate Court is liable to be modified into one under Section

335 of I.P.C. in respect of the first accused Shanmugam and under Section 335

read with Section 109 I.P.C in respect of second accused Rajaram. Now coming to

the question of sentence, I have already held that the offence could have occurred

on account of the sudden provocation of the accused. In this case, the first

accused have already undergone sentence for a period of five days and the second

accused have already undergone sentence for a period of fourteen days. The said

period can be taken as the period of imprisonment. Apart from the same, the fine

amount is also modified as Rs.2000/- each.

15.During the course of the argument when the Court enquired both the

counsel for the accused had submitted that they are ready and willing to pay some

compensation. The counsel for the second accused had today handed over the

demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is in the name of P.W.1. The same is

handed over to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who shall ensure that the

demand draft be handed over to P.W.1. Similarly, first accused / Shanmugam shall

also pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of demand draft to be handed over to the

Investigating officer within a period of two weeks from today. This apart, already

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:48 pm )

fine amount that is paid was ordered to be paid out to the said Magendran. If it is

already paid out, the same need not be recovered and inspite of the fine amount

being reduced by this Court both the counsel for the accused would submit that

the respective accused would not claim back the said amount.

16.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision cases stand partly allowed.

19.11.2025

Neutral citation : Yes/No

Note:-

When we keep the civil suits pending, parties turn to criminal acts, the

complain against patta, complain against electricity connection etc., and multiple

conflicts and litigations arise. Therefore, the copy of this judgment shall be placed

before the concerned civil Court so that the civil issue can be concluded as

expeditiously as possible.