Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. R.N. Manjula, J
Mari @ Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
State rep., by – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.487 of 2017 | Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.RL.Dhilipan Pandian
For the Respondents: Mr.A. Albert James
The court established that lack of corroborative evidence undermines the prosecution's case, modifying convictions appropriately.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 452, 506(ii), 448, 323 - Criminal appeal regarding conviction and sentencing - The accused was convicted for trespassing, causing hurt and intimidation - The Court modified the charges for which conviction was found appropriate to be under Sections 448 and 323 instead of 452 and 324, respectively, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 506(ii). (Paras 3, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Burden of Proof - The Court discussed the credibility of witnesses, indicating no independent corroboration to support the prosecution's case - The trial court's conclusions were found unsustainable due to the lack of evidence demonstrating an intention to trespass with the preparation to assault. (Paras 4, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant unlawfully entered the defacto complainant's residence at night and caused injury without a weapon. The appellant claimed innocence, and the prosecution's eyewitnesses lacked corroboration.
Findings of Court:
Evidence proved trespassing and physical altercation, but the charge for grievous harm was unsubstantiated; hence charges were modified accordingly.
Issues: The Court addressed the adequacy of evidence supporting the charges leveled and the appropriateness of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the absence of an attack with a weapon warrants conviction under a lesser offense. Conclusively, verbal threats alone without intent do not substantiate a charge of intimidation.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed with modifications of convictions and sentences as detailed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consequences of unlawful entry and injury. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred as against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 07.11.2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2016 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Madurai, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one week of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 of IPC ; to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one year of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of ; to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (ii) of . The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set off order under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., was also ordered.
2. The appellant is the sole accused. The case of the prosecution had arisen on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, P.W.1, registered in Crime No. 403 of 2015 at the Samayanallur Police Station, for the offences under Sections 448 , 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is as follows:
(a) On 11.10.2015, during the night hours, while the defacto complainant, along with his wife and daughter, was sleeping at his residence with the door left open for better ventilation, at around 11:30 PM, the accused unlawfully trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant. Upon hearing a noise, the defacto complainant switched on the light and saw the accused inside the house. When the defacto complainant questioned the accused as to why he had entered the house, especially when women were sleeping inside, the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, made caste-based remarks, and bit the toes of his left foot. On seeing the same, the wife and daughter of the defacto complainant raised an alarm by shouting. At that juncture, the accused pushed the defacto complainant to the ground and fled away from the scene of occurrence saying that he would kill them.
(b) After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused. Since the offence is triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Judge has taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.129 of 2016 and after completing the legal mandate of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, the trial Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 452 , 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. When the accused was questioned, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
(c) During trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.
(d) After completion of trial, based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the eyewitnesses examined are interested witnesses, being close relatives of the defacto complainant. It was contended that no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the prosecution's case. Furthermore, P.W.2, in her evidence, stated that 4–5 neighbours arrived at the scene after hearing a noise, however, none of them supported the prosecution's version. It is also submitted that the alleged arrest of the accused, as narrated by the Investigating Officer, is not factually correct. These crucial aspects were not properly appreciated or considered by the learned trial Judge, 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the accused is a resident of the same locality, residing at nearby street. Therefore, there was no difficulty
