Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
C.Vijayakumar @ Viji – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.592 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.A.Mathew Berchmans
For the Respondents:Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
The court affirmed that slight delays in filing complaints are admissible if justified; when substantial evidence shows guilt, convictions must hold regardless of technical defenses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 326, and 506(ii) - Criminal Revision Petition - Conviction and sentence modified by appellate court - The petitioner, accused of assaulting a minor, appealed against the sentence after claiming the delay in lodging the complaint affected credibility - The court confirmed the attack's timeline and severity, acknowledging there was no malicious intent but upheld the conviction based on medical evidence. (Paras 1, 3, 5)
(B) Evidence - Delay in Lodging Complaint - The court noted credible explanations for the delay in lodging the complaint due to the minor's hesitation post-attack, which did not undermine the prosecution's case. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner assaulted a minor by hitting him with a cricket bat during a playground incident, causing serious head injuries requiring surgery.
Findings of Court:
Medical evidence confirmed the injury linked to the petitioner’s actions, with no premeditation; the petitioner offered compensation post-conviction, which was partially accepted.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the delay in filing the complaint and the gravity of the petitioner's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found sufficient evidence established the petitioner's guilt despite claims of the victim being tutored and procedural delays being justified.
Result: Conviction upheld with a modified sentence, contingent on compensation being paid.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assault on minor leading to serious injury. (Para 1) |
| 2. assault resulting in injury (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. credibility of witnesses and medical evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditional sentence modification based on compensation (Para 8) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 28.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.592 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9863 of 2021 & 1899 of 2022 C.Vijayakumar @ Viji ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. By The Sub-Inspector of Police, G-5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai – 600 012.
(Crime No.422/2017) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Crl.A.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the learned XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Allikulam, Chennai modifying the order in C.C.No.5913 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai and to set aside the order of conviction passed in Judgment in Crl.A.No.16 of 2019 dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Allikulam, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Mathew Berchmans For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER The petitioner/accused convicted by judgment, dated 20.12.2018 in C.C.No.1913 of 2017, by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine fo Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC , to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 and to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (ii) . Aggrieved over the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.16 of 2019. The learned XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Allikulam, Chennai by judgment dated 19.08.2021 allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and sentenced the petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 335 and to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for the offence under (i) . Against which, the present revision is filed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2017 at about
3.30 p.m., the victim/P.W.3 was playing cricket with his friends in the playground situated at Otteri Mullai Park, at that time, the petitioner/accused came there, forced the victim to hand over the cricket bat to him, which was refused and resisted, the petitioner forcibly pulled the bat from the victim and hit him on his head. The petitioner further threatened him not to disclose the incident to anyone or his parents, otherwise he will be done away. Fearing for the same, P.W.3 not disclosed the same to his parents but complained about headache. P.W.1 and P.W.2, parents of P.W.3, found contusion on the head of the victim and took him to Ponni Clinic at Nammarlwarpet, Chennai where P.W.11 examined P.W3 and advised to take xray and CT scan, from which, it is found that there is a fracture on the left side skull together with some abrasions and blood clot on the brain.
P.W.10/Doctor at Prime India Hospital conducted surgery on 17.03.2017, removed the fracture bone and blood clot and installed artificial net on the head of the victim. P.W.12/RMO at Prime India Hospital confirmed that the victim was brought to the hospital on 15.03.2017 by his father/P.W.1 for treatment, the victim took treatment as inpatient and he was discharged on 21.03.2017. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 lodged a complaint to P.W.13, who received the complaint, collected the cri
