[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P.Vetriselvan vs The State Represented By on 20 February, 2026

    2026:MHC:732



                                                                                         CRL RC No.1601 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                            RESERVED ON : 17-02-2026

                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 20-02-2026

                                                          CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                             CRL RC No.1601 of 2023



                     P.Vetriselvan
                     S/o.Paranjothi,
                     Sahajanantha Street,
                     Chidambaram.
                                                                                           ...Petitioner/Appellant/
                                                                                                          Accused
                                                               Vs

                     The State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Chidambaram Town Police Station,
                     Chidambaram.
                     Crime No.798 of 2012.
                                                                                        ...Respondent/Respondent/
                                                                                                     Complainant

                     Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
                     Cr.P.C., to set aside the order passed in CA.No.98/2019 on the file of the
                     2nd Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram dated

                                                                                                   __________
                                                                                                   Page 1 of 10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )
                                                                                             CRL RC No.1601 of 2023


                     24.01.2022, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed in
                     SC.No.75/2013           on    the    file    of     the      Assistant     Sessions    Judge,
                     Chidambaram, dated 17.09.2019.

                                    For Petitioner :                Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

                                    For Respondent :                Mr.R.Vinothraja
                                                                    Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                                                                 ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case challenges the Judgment of conviction

and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chidambaram, in C.A.No.98 of 219, confirming the Judgment of

conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.75 of 2013, for the

offences under Sections 324, 307 (1 count), and 332 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and sentencing him as

follows:

Offence under Section Sentence imposed 324 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months.

307 (1 count) IPC To undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo SI for one year.

332 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo RI for three years.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a history

sheeter; that the victims, P.W.2 and P.W.3 in this case, who are police

officials, had gone to the petitioner’s house on the night intervening

24.11.2012 and 25.11.2012 at 12.00 midnight to arrest him in connection

with Crime No. 777 of 2012; that the petitioner refused to open the door;

that he threw a beer bottle through the window and caused injury to one

of the witnesses, P.W.3, a constable; and thereafter, the petitioner came

out of the house and attacked the other witness, P.W.2, a constable, with a

knife and caused grievous injuries on the head, jaw, and hands of P.W.2

and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12, besides

two material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. The trial Court found that the

prosecution had established its case and held that the petitioner was guilty

of the offences under Sections 324, 332, and 307 (1 count) of the IPC and

sentenced him as stated in the first paragraph of this order. The Appellate

Court confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

4. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, would submit that the prosecution had failed to

establish that the victims, P.W.2 and P.W.3, are police officials; that they

were authorised to arrest the petitioner/accused in connection with Crime

No. 777 of 2012; that the prosecution had not established that an FIR was

pending against the petitioner in the said crime number; and that the

petitioner exercised his right of self-defence since the witnesses had

attempted to enter into his house at that odd hour without any valid

reason, and prayed for acquittal. He relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Public Prosecutor v. Anandhan Annamalai & Others, reported

in 1953 MWN (CR) 122.

5. Mr. R. Vinothraja, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

for the respondent, per contra, submitted that though the respondent have

not filed the FIR in Crime No.777 of 2012, the evidence would show that

the petitioner is a history-sheeted rowdy; that P.W.2 and P.W.3/injured

witnesses had gone to the house of the petitioner to apprehend him as he

was absconding for a long time; and that even assuming that there was an

illegal arrest, the petitioner had no right to attack the injured

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

witnesses/P.W.2 and P.W.3 and submitted that the concurrent findings of

fact do not suffer from any infirmity, and hence, the criminal revision

may be dismissed.

6. It is seen from the record that both P.W.2 and P.W.3 were

injured in the attack. P.W.3 had sustained bleeding injuries in his eyes,

and glass pieces were found in his eyes. P.W.10, the doctor who had

examined P.W.3 and made entries in Accident Register [Ex.P9], would

confirm the said injuries on P.W.3, the constable. It is also seen that

P.W.2, the constable, who had gone along with P.W.3 to arrest the

petitioner, was attacked with a knife. He was also examined by P.W.10,

the doctor.

7. P.W.10’s evidence would show that P.W.2 had sustained a

lacerated injury of 2 x 2 cm in his lower jaw and a cut injury in the head

measuring 6 x 2 x 2 cm and a lacerated injury of 2 x 2 cm in the nose and

2 lacerated injuries in the hand, one measuring 3 x 2 cm and the other

measuring 1 x 1 cm. The doctor, P.W.10, had opined that the injuries

sustained by P.W.2 were simple injuries. P.W.2 and P.W.3, the injured

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

witnesses, had both deposed that they went to the house of the petitioner

to apprehend him in connection with Crime No. 777 of 2012, which was

registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 506 (ii) of

IPC.

8. It is their further version that the petitioner was absconding for

several days. Though the prosecution had not filed the said FIR, it is not

the case of the petitioner that there was no such FIR. The petitioner had

not let in any evidence to the contrary. Though the learned counsel would

plead that the act of the petitioner would fall within the general exception

as he has exercised his right of self-defence, this Court is of the view that

the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proving that his act falls

within the general exception as required under Section 105 of the Indian

Evidence Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner would be of no avail to the petitioner. Therefore, the concurrent

findings of fact rendered by the Courts below are not perverse, and are

based on the evidence on record. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in

the said finding.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

9. However, considering the fact that the injuries sustained by the

two victims are simple in nature and the nature of the injuries, this Court

is of the view that the interest of Justice would be met if the sentence

imposed on the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 307 (1

count) of the IPC is reduced to 3 years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in

default to undergo 1 year SI. The sentences imposed for the other

offences are justified and accordingly confirmed, and hence, it is ordered

as follows:

(i)The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324, 307 (1 count), and 332 of the IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, vide judgment dated 17.09.2019 in S.C.No.75 of 2013 and confirmed by the learned II Additional District Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, vide judgment dated 24.01.2022 in C.A.No.98 of 2019, is confirmed.

(ii) However, the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 (1 count) of the IPC, i.e., to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year of simple imprisonment, is modified, and the

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

petitioner is sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one year of simple imprisonment.

(iii) The sentences imposed on the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324 and 332 of the IPC are confirmed, and all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(iv) The fine amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted against the fine amount imposed now.

(v) The period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

10.With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Case stands

disposed of.

20-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk/ars

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:27:57 pm )

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.

2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.

3. The Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Chidambaram.

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

__________