The court affirmed that procedural defects do not invalidate a conviction when substantial evidence supports the verdict, especially in cases influenced by community and caste dynamics.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in S.S.C.No.99 of 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows (i) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the accused were living in the same village. The injured witnesses belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. The accused belong to the Backward Class community. The accused is residing nearby the resident of the defacto complainant's family. The defacto complainant used to keep pigs before his house and the accused disliked the pigs roaming near his street. In view of those previous motive on 26.10.2013, at about 1.30 p.m, the accused abused the mother-in-law of P.W.1 with filthy language and by making caste remarks. He also showed his private parts and shouting in a very obscene manner. When this was questioned by P.W.1, the accused took a knife from his dhoti and attacked P.W.1 on her head.

When her sister-in-law came for her rescue, the accused pushed her down and attacked her with stick on her stomach. Due the above incident, P.W.1 suffered cut injuries and P.W.3 suffered simple injuries.

(ii)After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harssment of Women Act and Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act . The case was taken cognizance by the trial court.

(iii) On appearance of the accused, the copies were served to the accused. On being satisfied that prima facie reasons exist for framing charges, charges were framed against the accused. On questioning upon the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore proceedings were issued for commencement of trial.

(v) In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W. 11 and marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.15. No oral and documentary evidence was produced on the side of the accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(vi) Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Court found the sole accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act and found the sole accused guilty for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 324 IPC and the accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:

(viii) Aggrieved over that, the sole accused filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are lot of investigation flaws and they were not properly appreciated by the Sessions Judge; the weapon used for the occurrence has been recovered and it did not have blood stains; during cross-examination, P.W.6, Doctor stated that there is possibility for the injuries suffered by P.W.2 could be caused even when sharp weapon fell on her head or when a sharp nail fitted on wall hit on her head; medical memo has not been given in a proper manner and Investigating Officer/Sub Inspector who has issued medical memo has not been examined.

4. Apart from the above submission, the learned counsel for the appellant mainly pointed out that there is no evidence to show that P.W.3 had suffered simple injuries as stated by the trial Judge in the judgment. Even when there is no evidence to show that she had taken treatment, the court presumed that P.W.3 could have suffered pain when she was attacked with wooden log. Eve