2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1026 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Ajith Kumar, Mr.G.Balaji Venkateswaran, Mr.L.Baskaran, Mr.K.Kuladaivelu
For the Respondents: Not Specified
The court upheld the conviction for grievous assault under Section 326 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of medical evidence while modifying the sentence based on the petitioner's age and circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326 - Conviction for grievous hurt - Petitioner convicted for assaulting his wife with a crowbar, resulting in severe injuries - The trial court's conviction upheld despite doubts regarding witness credibility and evidence handling - The petitioner modified sentence to 270 days already served due to mitigating factors. (Paras 1, 11, 14, 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation delays - Delay in police response and evidence collection raised concerns about the integrity of the investigation. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner assaulted his wife during a dispute over property and familial relationships, resulting in grievous injuries confirmed by medical evidence. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated due to family disputes.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC but modified the sentence to the time already served.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witnesses, the integrity of evidence, and the motives behind the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found sufficient evidence of grievous assault and upheld the conviction while considering the familial context and motives for the allegations.
Result: Criminal revision case partly allowed, sentence modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident leading to the conviction. (Para 2) |
| 2. defense arguments questioning the credibility of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. prosecution's stance supported by medical evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. continued allegations and complaints against the petitioner. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and investigation lapses. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. motive for the assault and family disputes. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. confirmation of conviction based on evidence. (Para 14) |
| 8. modification of sentence based on the circumstances. (Para 15) |
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by judgment, dated 04.09.2019 in S.C.No.21 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 326 IPC . Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A.No.280 of 2019 and the same was dismissed by judgment, dated 23.04.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/PW1 is the wife of the petitioner/accused and they have two daughters and a son/PW2. One daughter examined as PW4. The petitioner was holding all properties and was not willing to share the properties to his wife, son and dsughters. Further, the petitioner not allowed his son/PW2 and daughters to enter the house and have any relationship. On 11.02.2017, PW1 was informed that her grandson was not well, hence she had gone to elder daughter's house at Chinniyampalayam, visited her grandson, from there she had gone to her son's house at Iyampalayam, visited her granddaughter and stayed there for two days. On 13.02.2017, PW2 dropped PW1 at her house. When PW1 entered the house, the petitioner questioned PW1 why she had gone to son and daughter's house and picked up a quarrel. Thereafter shouting that only if she is alive she will go to meet them, took a crowbar (MO1) and assaulted PW1 on her both hands and legs, caused severe injuries and fracture. On hearing PW1 shouting with pain, PW2 who was talking with his friend/PW5 nearby, came rushing along with PW5. On seeing PW2 and PW5, the petition threw the crowbar (MO1), fled the scene by bicycle. Thereafter, PW2 took his injured mother in his car, called his grandmother/PW3 and informed his sister/PW4 who asked them to take PW1 to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. PW1 was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, where the Doctor/PW8 treated the injured as inpatient from 13.02.2017 to 03.03.2017. From the hospital, information sent to the 1st respondent Police on the same day. But PW7/Head Constable visited the hospital three days later on 16.02.2017, received the complaint (Ex.P1), recorded the statement of PW1, thereafter came to the Police Station, registered FIR (Ex.P4) in Crime No.12 of 2017 for offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act , 2002 against the petitioner. PW9/Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of Doctor/PW8, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P6), arrested the accused, recovered the crowbar (MO1) and obtained the wound certificate (Ex.P5). Finding that the injuries are grievous in nature, PW9 handed over the investigation to PW10 who took up further investigation, prepared alteration report (Ex.P7) adding Section 307 IPC , on conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the trial Court. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, ten witnesses examined PW1 to PW10 and seven documents marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MO1 marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined but one document Ex.D1 marked. On conclusion of