Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ARUL MURUGAN
Manikandan S/o Krishnamoorthy – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by the Inspector of Police, Koyambedu Police Station – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 461 of 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2026
For the Appellant : S. Angamuthu
For the Respondent: R. Kishore Kumar
The reliability of police testimony can substantiate charges in the absence of independent witnesses, particularly when corroborated by medical evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 332, 336, 353, 427, and 506(ii) - Criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted for attacking police constables during their duty, inflicting injuries and threatening public safety - Prosecution provided evidence through police constables and medical documentation, establishing injuries to the victim - The trial court deemed the presence of independent witnesses unnecessary due to the nature of the incident and reliability of police testimony - Sentence modified based on mitigating circumstances of the appellant, previously leading a reformed life - Conviction confirmed, but sentence reduced to time already served. (Paras 3, 5, 15, 17)
(B) Evidence - Reliability of police witness testimony - Injured officer's testimony and medical documentation corroborate the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. incident description and prosecution evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's defense arguments. (Para 6) |
| 4. prosecution's argument on injuries. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's examination of evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. credibility of witness testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 7. evidence assessment and trial court findings. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 8. mitigating factors for sentence modification. (Para 16) |
| 9. modification of sentence and conclusion. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.212 of 2018 by judgment dated 29.03.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.
2. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 332, 336, 353, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced as follows:
| Penal Provisions | Sentence of Imprisonment | Fine Amount |
| 294(b) IPC | Rs.500/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment | |
| 332 IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment |
| 336 IPC | Rs.250/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment | |
| 353 IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment |
| 427 IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment |
| 506(ii) IPC | 1 year RI | Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment |
| The above sentences shall run concurrently |
3. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 and PW2, the police constables, were assigned with their routine duty in Koyambedu Bus Terminus. On 13.01.2010, in the course of their routine duty, at about 7.30p.m., they heard a noise “catch him! catch him!” and PW1 saw the accused was running out of the bus stand, being chased by the delta police party and other public. On hearing the sound, PW1 intervened and tried to catch the accused. The accused snatched a knife out of his pocket and slashed on the face of PW1 causing injury on the left side of the ear and cheeks. Again the accused caused another cut injury in the left hand of PW1 and had access to the nearby shop. The accused took the bottles from the nearby shop and randomly threw the bottles on the public and police who were chasing him and threatened them with dire consequences. The public being scared by the above incident, started to run away fearing for their life. By taking advantage of the chaos situation, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. Immediately PW1 was taken to a nearby hospital by PW2. PW1 was examined and admitted in the hospital and accident register/Ex.P11 was issued. On intimation from the hospital, PW3 went to the hospital and after receiving the complaint (Ex.P1) from PW1, he registered FIR/Ex.P3. PW3 prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch which were marked as Exs.P4 and P5. On the same day night, the accused was arrested and his confession statement was recorded. The admissible portion of the confession statement alone was marked as Ex.P7 and based on his confession, the knife which was used for inflicting the injury was seized and marked as Ex.P8. The same was sent to Court in Form 95 which was marked as Ex.P9. The offence was altered in Ex.P3 and after obtaining the wound certificate/Ex.P12 from the hospital, the Inspector of Police (PW3) completed the investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Egmore. The learned Magistrate on receipt of report, complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to Sessions Court, Magalir Needhimandram.
5. The trial court took case on file and framed the charges under Sections 294 (b), 336, 353, 333, 427, 506(ii) IPC . When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The prosecution in order to prove the charges, examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., about the incriminating materials, he den
