J U D G E M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated

14.11.2019 passed in S.C.No.149 of 2014 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Tiruppur.

2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.684 of 2013 against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC. After completing investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2014 and after completing the proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Tirupur under Section 209(A) Cr.P.C., The learned Sessions Judge has taken the case on file in S.C.No.149 of 2014 and made over the same to Mahalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahila Court], Tiruppur. The learned Special Judge, after trial, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo further period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case as projected by them. The appellant is the father of the defacto complainant and there is a civil dispute between the parties. Both the parties are agriculturists and they had agricultural lands. In order to avoid giving share to the appellant, the defacto complainant foisted a false case against him. There is no ingredient of Section 307 IPC made out in this case. Even admitted that there was an occurrence, but as per the wound certificate, it is found that the victim has not sustained any injury on her vital part. It shows that there is no intention for the appellant to take away the life of the victim. Therefore, prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no motive for the offence except the property dispute between the parties. In order to defeat his civil right, the complainant foisted a false case. No witness has spoken about that the appellant attacked the victim with cruel intention to take away life of her. In Wound certificate, it is stated that the all injuries sustained by the victim are below the hip portion. It clearly shows that the appellant had no intension to take away life of the victim and caused injuries. Except P.W.1, all other witnesses were turned hostile. Further, evidence of the medical officer clearly shows that the injured has taken treatment in the hospital for three days which clearly shows the nature of injuries sustained by the victim. Initially, the case was registered under Section 326 IPC and subsequently it was altered into Section 307 IPC, and even the F.I.R and AR copy, clearly shows that ingredients of 307 IPC would not stand attracted. Therefore, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which warrants interference of this Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that though appellant and the defacto complainant are close relatives, they have a civil dispute between them. Defacto complainant is the younger son of the accused and injured is the wife of the accused. The appellant is a drunkard and used to quarrel with his wife and demanded money to consume alcohol. On 15.12.2013 at about 9.30 am, when P.W.1 was watering the corn field, his father demanded money to his mother to consume alcohol and to partition the agricultural lands. His mother replied that she will partition the properties only after the marriage of P.W.1 and his brother. At that time, accused attacked P.W.2. P.W.1 is the son, who categorically stated that he has seen the occurrence. It is proved that the victim sustained multiple injuries. Therefore, prosecution proved its case through eye witness and medical e