High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.562 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.562 of 2023A.Katturaja... AppellantVsState Represented By Inspector of Police,Vellakoil Circle, Tiruppur District. Cr.No.521 of 2015...Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in SC.No.91 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirupur.For Appellant : Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in SC.No.91 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirupur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2015, the accused Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023demanded money from the son of the victim to consume alcohol to celebrate the birthday of the victim's son. When he denied money, the accused kept on knocking at the door. When the victim opened the door, all of a sudden, the accused attacked the victim with Aruval. Therefore, she sustained fracture in between her left eye and ear. Hence, the complaint.3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.521 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in SC.No.91 of 2017.4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to 9. The prosecution had also produced a material object and the same was marked as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness. Except for the victim, who was examined as PW.1, no other witness has deposed to corroborate the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 deposed that when she opened the door, all of a sudden, the appellant attacked her with Aruval. Therefore, the appellant had no intention to kill PW.1 at any point of time. He further submitted that the appellant repeatedly demanded money from the son of PW.1 for consuming alcohol to celebrate the birthday of son of PW.1. When PW.1 denied giving money and closed the door, the accused kept knocking at the door and when PW.1 opened it, the appellant gave a blow on her head. If PW.1 was attacked, it was only with the object that her son would come out and give money to the appellant to consume alcohol. Admittedly, all are close relatives and the appellant is none other than the brother-in-law of PW.1. Therefore, the appellant had absolutely no intention to commit the murder of PW.1. Therefore, the Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023offence under Section 307 of IPC is not at all attracted as against the appellant.6. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, PW.1 did not even whisper that the appellant scolded her with filthy language or threatened her with dire consequences. The son of PW.1, who was examined as PW.3, improved his version from the deposition of PW.1 and deposed that the appellant scolded her with filthy languages and also threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that though the injury sustained by PW.1 was declared as grievous one, it was only lacerated injury. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for nearly two years.7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant attacked PW.1 with a deadly weapon, which was produced as M.O.1 with an intention to do away with the life of PW.1. Fortunately, she sustained a fracture in between her left eye and ear. She was admitted as inpatient for 10 days. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is clearly proved by the prosecution. Her son was examined as PW.3 and he categorically deposed that when the appellant kept on knocking Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023at the door and when PW.1 opened it, the appellant immediately attacked her with Aruval and caused grievous injury. That apart, he scolded her in filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.9. The victim was examined as PW.1 and her son was examined as PW.3. The appellant is a close relative of PWs.1 and 3. The mahazer witness was examined as PW.2, but he turned hostile. On the date of the alleged occurrence, it was the birthday of PW.3. In order to celebrate his birthday, the appellant demanded money from PW.3 to consume alcohol. However, PW.3 refused to give money and went inside the house, whereupon his mother viz., P.W1 locked the door. Thereafter, the appellant kept on knocking at the door and as such, PW.1 opened it. All of a sudden, the appellant attacked her with an Aruval, due to which she sustained injury between her left eye and ear. The said injury was declared as grievous in nature. PW.1 deposed that when the appellant Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023demanded money to consume alcohol and followed PW.3, P.W.3 went into the house and his mother viz., PW.1 locked the door. As the appellant kept on knocking at the door, PW.1 opened it and immediately, the appellant attacked her with Aruval and therefore, causing the injury. However, PW.1 did not even whisper that the appellant scolded her with filthy languages and also threatened her with dire consequences.10. The portion of the evidence of PW.1 as follows:- vjpupf;F kJ mUe;Jk; gHf;fk; cs;sJ/ Rkhu; 4“ tUlj;jpw;F Kd;ghf xU ehs; ehDk; vd; kfd; m!;tpDk; v';fs; tPl;oy; ,Ue;jnghJ khiy 6/00 kzpastpy; vjpup v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;J vd; kfdJ gpwe;j ehs; vd;gjhy; gpwe;j ehSf;F jdf;F kJ th';fpf; bfhLf;Fk;go nfl;lhu;/ mjw;F vd; kfd; ifapy; ,Ue;j fhrpy; jhd; ou!; vLj;Jtpl;ljhft[k;. kJ th';Ftjw;F gzk; ,y;iy vd;W brhd;dhu;/ cd; gpwe;j ehisf;Fj; jhnd nfl;fpnwd;. eP bfhLf;fkhl;o';fpwha; vd;W vd; kfdplk; jfuhW bra;J bfhz;oUe;jhu;/ mtu;fSf;Fs; thf;Fthjk; Kw;wpajhy; ehd; vd; kfid eP tPl;ow;Fs; ngh vd;W brhd;ndd;/ vd; kfd; cs;ns ngha;tpl;lhd;/ ehd; Kd;dhy; ,Ue;j U:kpy; ,Ue;jnghJ m!;tpd; eP btspna thlh vd;W fjitj; jl;of; bfhz;oUe;jhu;/ ehd; vjpup ifahy; jhd; fjitj; jl;Lfpwhu; vd;W epidj;J jhiH ePf;fpanghJ vjpupapd; ifapy; mupths; ,Ue;jJ/ vjpup btspna thlh jhnahHp vd;W jfhj thu;j;ijfshy; jpl;of; bfhz;nl vd;id mupthshy; ,lJ gf;f jiyapy; btl;odhu;/ me;j mupths; jhd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; mupths;/ mJ rh/bgh/1 rk;gtk; ele;jt[ld; vjpupad; kidtp rk;g{u;zht[k;. vd; kfd; m!;tpDk; vd;id bts;snfhtpy; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F rpfpr;iff;fhf Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023miHj;Jg; nghdhu;fs;/ m';fpUe;J fh';fak; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F nky; rpfpr;irf;fhf mDg;gp itj;jhu;fs;/”11. Therefore, there is absolutely no material available in order to attract the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. The son of PW.1 was examined as PW.3. He deposed that when PW.1 opened the door, the appellant scolded her with filthy languages and also threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, he attacked her with Aruval.12. Admittedly, PW.3 was inside the room. Therefore, he might not have seen the occurrence. Even according to PW.3, he did not see the occurrence. However, he deposed that the appellant scolded PW.1 with filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, it is only an after thought and deposed to attract the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. Except PW.1 and PW.3, no other witness was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW.3. These contradictions between PW.1 and PW.3 affects the case of the prosecution, insofar as the charges under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC are concerned. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the charges under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 202313. Insofar as the offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, even according to the case of the prosecution, the appellant demanded money to consume alcohol only from PW.3. Thereafter, PW.3 went inside his room and thereafter, PW.1 locked the door. Though the appellant came with an Aruval, he did not have any intention to do away with the life of PW.1 or P.W.3. His demand was only money to consume alcohol. When PW.1 opened the door, all of a sudden, the appellant attacked her with an Aruval. It was also only a single blow. If the appellant had an intented to do away with the life of PW.1, he would have attacked her several times. In fact, it was the appellant's wife who took the victim to the hospital along with PW.3. Therefore, all are close relatives and the appellant is residing just four houses away to PW.1's house. Further, the appellant had absolutely no intention to do away with the life of PW.1 and also he had attacked only once.14. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 307 of IPC as follows:-“ 307. Attempt to murder — Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts — When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 15. Thus, in order to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the intention or knowledge must be there. In the case on hand, the appellant knocked at the door to get money from PW.3 to consume alcohol. Therefore, the appellant had absolutely no intention to do away with the life of PW.1 or PW.3. After hearing the noise of knocking at the door, PW.1 opened it. Therefore, the appellant had no knowledge that PW.1 would open the door. He had attacked once on PW.1. Therefore, the charge under Section 307 of IPC is not at all attracted. However, the appellant caused grievous hurt on PW.1 using deadly weapon. Therefore, he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. So far, the appellant is in imprisonment for nearly two years. The appellant, PW.1 and PW.3, are close relatives and in fact, the victim was brought to the hospital by the appellant's wife.16. In view of the above, the Judgment passed in SC.No.91 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tirupur, is hereby set aside. This Court is inclined to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the period of incarceration which Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023was already undergone by the appellant.17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.07.08.2025Speaking order/Non-speaking orderIndex :Yes/NoInternet :Yes/NomnTo1. The Mahila Court, Tirupur.2. The Inspector of Police, Vellakoil Circle, Tiruppur District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.562 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.mnCrl.A.No.562 of 202307.08.2025Page 11 of 11