The court confirmed the conviction of the accused for voluntarily causing hurt and modified the sentence considering the accused's circumstances, emphasizing the role of eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.59 of 2021 dated 25.11.2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Karur.

2. The appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred as 'accused') in S.C.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Karur.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur Town Sub Division laid a charge sheet against the accused alleging that the second respondent Marimuthu / defacto complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') along with his mother Karuppaiyee and sister Angalaparameshwari are residing at Karuppur, Uppidamangalam Post, Karur District, that the complainant is working as a salesman in Siva Textiles, Karur and he belongs to Hindu Chakkiliyar Community, that the accused belongs to Hindu Telugu Chettiar Community, that the accused married one Kanniyammal, wife of deceased Logithasan a relative of the complainant, that the complainant's sister Angalaparameshwari was given in marriage to Kanniyammal's son Balasubramanian, that the said Angalaparameshwari has been residing in her brother complainant's house for the past one year, that the said Kanniyammal and her husband (accused herein) used to receive the salary of the said Balasubramanian, who was working in an iron shop at Gandhigram, Karur, that the said Angalaparameshwari went to the shop of her husband Balasubramanian and received his salary two days prior to the occurrence, that the said Kanniyammal came to the house of the complainant and quarrelled with her daughter-in-law Angalaparameshwari and received back the salary of her son, that the said Angalaparameshwari informed the incident to her brother complainant, who in turn, contacted the said Kanniyammal through phone and enquired about receiving back the salary, that the accused had abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences, that on 27.07.2021 at about 21.30 hours, when the complainant was lying in a rope cot in the front yard of his house, the accused came there with a aruval and attempted to attack him, that the complainant resisted with his left hand and as a result, he sustained cut injuries on his left hand small finger and on his forehead, that when the complainant's mother had intervened, she received a cut injury on her left hand, that the accused threatening the complainant that he would kill him, ran away from that place and that thereby the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(2) IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

4. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file in S.C.No.59 of 2021 and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on free of costs. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Sections 294(b) IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 326 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 323 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 506(2) IPC