Madras High Court
K.Ayyanar vs The State Represented By on 24 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.R.C.No.1900 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.1900 of 2024
K.Ayyanar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirukoilur Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.
Crime No.184 of 2017 .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of
B.N.S.S., to call for the records of judgment in Criminal Appeal No.11 of
2024, dated 19.09.2024 on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi and modifying the judgment, dated
15.12.2023 in C.C.No.197 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Tirukoilur and to set aside the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.1900 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.H.Rajesh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi, dated
19.09.2024 made in Crl.A.No.11 of 2024. By the said judgment, the
Appellate Court modified the judgment of the Trial Court, dated
15.12.2023 made in C.C.No.197 of 2019. The Trial Court namely, the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirukoilur, by the aforesaid judgment, found the
petitioner/accused guilty of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal code and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. On appeal, the Appellate Court modified
the conviction into one under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced the petitioner/accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of six months and reduced the fine amount to Rs.1,000/- and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
ordered the same to be paid as compensation to P.W.1, the injured witness
and the balance fine amount was ordered to be returned to the
petitioner/accused.
2. Mr.H.Rajesh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused,
by taking this Court to the evidence on record, would submit that it can be
seen that it is the petitioner/accused who is the creditor and P.W.1, the
injured witness, is a debtor. The other accused namely, the father of the
petitioner/accused i.e., the first accused namely, Kathavarayan and the
third accused namely, Selvi, were acquitted by the Trial Court. When the
Appellate Court found that the very crux of the offence is not proved, only
based on the wound certificate, the petitioner/accused alone was convicted.
3. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner/accused, when this Court pointed out to the evidence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
injured witness coupled with the medical evidence on record and the
findings of the Appellate Court, the learned Counsel would thereupon
argued on the question of sentence. For the purpose of sentence, the Court
heard the learned Counsel in detail.
4. The parties were also ordered to be present through video
conferencing. Both the petitioner/accused and the de facto complainant
were present. It is seen that both the de facto complainant has repaid the
loan and there is no transaction pending between the parties. There is no
scope for any further conflict between the parties. The de facto
complainant expressed that he is living in the village as a single family and
since the petitioner/accused is a person having influence in the village, he
should not again threaten the de facto complainant and if the
petitioner/accused does not come in the way of the de facto complainant in
any manner whatsoever, he is even willing for compounding of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
offence. The manner, in which, the de facto complainant made the
statement and the stage in which he has made, was also taken note of. The
petitioner/accused would also submit that henceforth, there is nothing
between the de facto complainant and the petitioner/accused and he will
not in any manner further harass or involve with the de facto complainant.
5. When the said submission is made, considering the fact that
the Appellate Court has convicted the petitioner/accused, only for the
offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court directed the
respondent Police to get the Probationary Officer's Certificate. Today, the
said certificate is also produced. Upon perusal of the certificate, it can be
seen that the petitioner/accused has a permanent residence and that he is
leading a lawful life with his family and there is no other antecedent as
against the petitioner/accused. The certificate shows that the conduct of
the petitioner/accused is good so as to extend the benefit of probation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
the petitioner/accused. The same is also taken into account. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that in the event of this
Court releasing the petitioner/accused on probation, the petitioner/accused
will not claim back the amount of fine already paid by him and the same
can be paid out to the de facto complainant as compensation. The same is
also recorded.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts mentioned, this Criminal
Revision Case is partly allowed on the following terms:-
(i) The conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code as found by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi vide the judgment, dated
19.09.2024 in Crl.A.No.11 of 2024, shall stand confirmed. However,
without proceeding to sentence the petitioner/accused, after admonition,
the petitioner/accused is released on probation under Probation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
Offenders Act on the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner/accused shall execute a bond undertaking good
conduct and also give a further undertaking that he will not involve with
the de facto complainant/injured witness in any manner whatsoever for
another period of one year and failing compliance, he shall appear before
this Court to take the sentence;
(b) The petitioner/accused will not claim back the sum of
Rs.5,000/- deposited by him on the file of the Trial Court after the fine was
imposed and the said sum shall be paid out to the de facto complainant as
compensation.
24.11.2025
Neutral Citation : no
grs
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Kallakurichi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Tirukoilur.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirukoilur Police Station,
Kallakurichi District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
