High Court · 2025

CRL A NO.75 of 2017IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCRL A NO. 75 of 2017Ravi, M/42S/o.Kaliyaperumal, Devanoor Road, Variyankaval, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District. Appellant/Accused VsThe State Rep.ByThe Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.Cr.No.366 of 2014. Respondent/Complainant Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the conviction Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur in S.C.No.80 of 2016 dated 24.01.2017. For Appellant(s): M/s.G.PugazhenthiFor Respondent(s): Mr.L.BaskaranGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side)JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide Judgment dated : 24.01.2017 in S.C.No.80 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim and the appellant are closely related to each other; that the victim is the brother's wife of the appellant; that the victim's husband and the appellant had a property dispute, and on account of the same, there was a quarrel on the night of 04.10.2014, and the appellant had attacked the victim with a knife and caused grievous injuries.3. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced as follows:Offence under SectionSentence imposed294(b) of the IPCTo undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.307 of the IPCTo undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year.Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017Offence under SectionSentence imposedSentences are ordered to run concurrently.4. Pending the appeal, the victim and the appellant had entered into a compromise pursuant to the intervention of the elders and well-wishers of the family and in order to maintain cordiality. The parties have filed a Memo of Compromise signed by the victim, confirming the compromise arrived at between them.5. The victim is present in person and would state that due to the intervention of elders, she had entered into a compromise and also prayed that the same may be recorded and the orders may be passed accordingly.6. The victim was identified by Mr. K. Gunasekaran, SSI, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District, Mob.No.97888 05987. She has also produced her Aadhar card bearing no.3275 7527 4681.7. Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) filed a Status Report of the Inspector of Police attached to the respondent, which also confirms the compromise entered into between the parties. Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 20178. The said Status Report filed by the respondent along with the statement of the victim is taken on record.9. The compromise memo dated 14.06.2024 is scanned and reproduced below:Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 201710. In view of the fact that the victim and the appellant are closely related to each other and the fact that they had entered into a compromise, this Court is of the view that the appeal need not be heard on merits. 11. It is reported by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the appellant has suffered a total incarceration of six months and sixteen days as on 27.06.2025 (during the investigation and during the appeal period).12. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murali and another vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in CDJ 2021 SC 015 held as follows. “13. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence. Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 201714. Second, at the time of the incident, the victim was a college student, and both appellants too were no older than 20-22 years. The attack was in pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, with there being no previous enmity between the parties. It does raise hope that parties would have grown up and have mended their ways. Indeed, in the present case, fifteen years have elapsed since the incident. The appellants are today in their mid thirties and present little chance of committing the same crime. 15. Third, the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the sole bread earners of their family and have significant social obligations to tend to. In such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of society to keep them incarcerated any further. 16. Finally, both appellants have served a significant portion of their sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence and Rajavelu has been in jail for more than year and eight months.”13. In this case also, we find, as stated earlier, the parties have entered into a compromise. The victim is very closely related to the appellant as she is the brother's wife of the appellant and if the appellant's sentence as imposed by the trial Court is confirmed, it would again lead to disputes in the family which appears to have been resolved.14. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the interest Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017of justice would be met if the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court were reduced to the period already undergone for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The fines imposed for the aforesaid two offences are confirmed. 15. Accordingly the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. The fine amount paid by the appellant/accused shall be adjusted. If the entire fine amount has not been paid by the appellant, he shall pay the same forthwith, failing which, he has to undergo the proportionate default sentence imposed by the trial Court. 30-06-2025dkIndex : yes/noInternet : yes/noNeutral citation : yes/noPage 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017To1.The Sessions Judge Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur2. The Inspector of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District. Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 2017SUNDER MOHAN,J.dk CRL A NO. 75 of 2017Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A NO.75 of 201730-06-2025Page 12 of 12