Madras High Court · 2025

CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 20244. The learned Sessions Judge, Theni, had taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2017 and furnished the copies of the records under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., on free of cost. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, on hearing the both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused framed the charges under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(2)(va) 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Theni and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2020.5. The prosecution, to prove its case examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The defence has adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence. 6. On completion of trial, the when the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating aspects found against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he denied the same 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024as false and further stated that a false case has been foisted against him. Thought the accused has stated that he is having defence evidence, be has not let in any evidence subsequently. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 16.08.2025, convicting the accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge, by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act 2015 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, acquitted the accused under Section 258(i) of BNSS. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal. 8. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2020, dated 16.08.2024 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Theni, is liable to be set aside ? is the point for consideration.4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 20249. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on records. 10.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there were material contradictions between the chief and cross examination of the complainant P.W.1; that P.W.1 in cross examination admitted that there were no electric lights in that area and was not possible to identify, who were standing at the occurrence time; that P.W.1 in his complaint had stated that he was attacked by three persons and in cross examination, he stated that one boy scolded him at the beginning; that the independent occurrence witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 had not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, they were treated hostile; that P.W.4 and P.W.5 and P.W.10 have stated that P.W.1 immediately after the incident came to their house and narrated about the occurrence, but there were contradictions between the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 and P.W.10 with regard to the material aspects; that the evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated by the medical evidence as P.W.12 Medical Officer has stated that there was no injury on P.W.1's cheek nor P.W.1 stated that he was attacked on his cheek 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024and that the learned trial Judge, without considering the above material contradictions, has proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC in a mechanical fashion and that therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that P.W.1 in his evidence has specifically stated that he was attacked by the accused and sustained injuries; that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.10 and also the medical evidence of P.W.12; that the contradictions elicited by the defence are not material, but are trivial in nature and that the learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and as such, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. 12. P.W.1/defacto complainant in his chief examination evidence would say that after dropping his friend P.W.10 in his home, he was returning through Benthagoste street, the accused restrained him, abused him in filthy language using caste name and attacked him and that the persons nearby had intervened and separated the accused and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024“14.09.2016 Mk; Njjp ,uT 09.20 kzpf;F tlfiuapy; cs;s nge;jNfh];ij rh;r; gf;fj;jpy; vd;Dila ez;giu ,wf;fp tp;l;L tUk;NghJ topkwpj;J vd;id rhjp ngaiu nrhy;yp giw gaNy ,q;F vjw;F tUfpwha; vd;w nrhy;yp mbj;jjhh;. mf;fk; gf;fk; ,Ue;jth;fs; te;J tpyf;fptpl;lhh;fs;. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, in Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.1 stated that the accused and his two friends restrained his two wheeler abused him in filthy language and slapped on his cheek and thereafter, all the three had repeatedly slapped and kicked him and that the accused allegedly tried to attack with an iron rod, but P.W.1 escaped. Admittedly, FIR was registered against the accused and 2 others and unknown persons. 14. It is the specific case of the prosecution that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are residents of Benthagoste church street, witnessed the occurrence, but both of them had not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, they were treated as hostile. Though P.W.2 and P.W.3 were subjected to cross examination, nothing was elicited by the prosecution in their favour. 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 202415. No doubt, P.W.1 immediately after the incident went to the house of his friend P.W.10 and narrated the incident to P.W.10 and his parents P.W.4 and P.W.5, who in turn came to the occurrence place and finding that the accused were not available, proceeded to the police station.16. P.W.4 in his chief examination evidence would say that P.W.1 had informed that he was restrained by three persons and while two persons caught hold of him, the accused had attacked him with help of a big stone, but P.W.1 pleaded ignorance to many cross examination questions. P.W.4 would admit that he did not witness the occurrence, but noticed that P.W.1 sustained injury near his left eye. 17.P.W.5 in her chief examination would say that P.W.1 informed them that he was restrained by three persons and all the persons had attacked P.W.1, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his right eye. 18. P.W.10 in his evidence would say that P.W.1 informed him that the accused had repeatedly slapped him and hence, his left eye turned reddish. But in cross examination, would admit that P.W.1 did not sustain any bleeding injury. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024accused, P.W.1 in his cross examination would admit that there were no electric lights in the occurrence area and hence, he was not able to say as to who were present at the occurrence time; that 5 – 6 persons were found available at the occurrence place and that one boy had abused him at the beginning. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder ; M[h; vjphpAk; ehDk;> rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;Dk;> gpd;;Dk; ghh;j;Jf;nfhz;lJ ,y;iy. rk;gtk; elf;Fk; tiu ehd; vd;d rhjp vd;Wk;> mth; vd;d rhjp vd;Wk; ,UtUf;Fk; njhpahJ. ...rk;gtk; ele;j Neuk; ,Ul;lhd Neuk; MFk;. rk;gt gFjp kpd;tpsf;Ffs; vJTk; ,y;yhj gFjpahFk;. me;j ,lj;jpy; ahh; epd;W ,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W milahsk; njhpe;J nfhs;s KbahJ vd;gJ rhpjhd;. rk;gtk; rkaj;jpy; vj;jid Ngh; ,Ue;jhh;fs; vd;why; rk;gt rkaj;jpy; 5> 6 egh;fs; ,Ue;jhh;fs;. vjphpAld; ahh;ahh; ,Ue;jhh;fs; vd;w tpguk; njhpahJ. ,uT Neuk; vd;gjhy; ahh; Kjypy; jpl;bdhh;fs; vd;why; xU igad;jhd; Kjypy; jpl;bdhh;. ahh; vd;W njhpahJ. ...,uT Neuj;jpy; ahh; mbj;jhh; vd;gJ njhpahJ vd;why; rrpf;Fkhh; jhd; mbj;jhh;. ifahy; mbj;;jhh;. ...1 egh;jhd; vd;id mbj;jhh;. fhak; vdf;F vq;Nf Vw;gl;lJ vd;w tpguk; Gfhhpy; Fwpg;gpl;L nrhy;ytpy;iy. ....9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024fk;gpahy; mbj;J nfhd;W tpLNtd; vd;W vjphpfs; kpul;bajhf Gfhhpy; nrhy;ypapUf;fpNwd;. 19. P.W.1 in his cross examination would say that in the complaint it has been stated that three persons had attacked P.W.1 and that he does not know about the other two persons, P.W.12 Medical Officer in his evidence would say that he noticed a contusion over left orbital bone and issued AR under Ex.P.5 giving his opinion under Ex.P.6 that the injury suffered by P.W.1 is is simple in nature. In cross examination P.W.12 would admit that he did not notice any injuries on the P.W.1's cheek and P.W.1 did not state that he was attacked on his cheek. 20. P.W.13 the then SI of police, Periyakulam Police station would say that FIR was registered against three persons; that after receiving the complainant, CSR was registered and as per directions of his higher officials, FIR was registered on 19.09.2016. Though P.W.1 in his Ex.P.1 complaint has alleged that he was slapped by the accused and other two persons on his cheek, he did not mention about the injuries sustained. Similarly in his chief examination, he has not stated about the injuries allegedly sustained by him. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 202421. P.W.4, P.W.10 and P.W.11 would state that P.W.1 sustained injuries nearby left eye, but P.W.5 would say that P.W.1 sustained injury nearby right eye. As already pointed out, P.W.12 medical officer in his AR has recorded that there was contusion over the left orbital area. 22. On considering the entire evidence available on record, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, the genesis of occurrence appears doubtful and the testimony of sole injured witness does not inspire confidence. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor the prosecution preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal of accused from the remaining charges. The learned trial Judge, did not consider material contradictions, mechanically convicting for the offence under Section 323 IPC, so the conviction is liable to be set aside. 23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2020, dated 16.08.2024, on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Theni is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Fine amount if any paid, shall be 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024refunded to him. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 28.11.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / NodasTo1.The Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Theni.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyakulam Sub Division, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.dasPre-delivery order made inCRL.A(MD).No. 869 of 2024andCrl.M.P(MD)No.11337 of 202428.11.202513/13