BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 25.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.A.(MD)No.519 of 2017

1.Sundarapandi

2.Karthick ... Appellants 2 & 3 vs.

State represented by

1.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.375 of 2014 ...Respondents PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgement of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai dated 09.11.2017 in Special S.C.No.104 of 2016.

For Appellants : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

J U D G E M E N T

This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgement of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai dated

09.11.2017 in Special S.C.No.104 of 2016.

2. The appellant are A2 and A3, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge as under.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, his father and his brother-in law belong to SC community. A1 to A3 belong to BC community and they have knowledge about the community of the complainant, his father and his brother-in-law. On 10.08.2014, at about 11.00 p.m., the defacto complainant and his brother-in-law were watching TV at the back side shed of their house and the parents of the defacto complainant were sleeping inside the house. At that time, A1 to A3 who had previous enmity came there with a common intention to murder the father of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and shouted. When the father of the defacto complainant came out of the house, A1 attacked the father of the defacto complainant with sword on his head, A2 attacked with sickle and A3 with knife on the neck, shoulder and back of the father of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant came to prevent the same, A1 abused him in filthy language, made caste remarks and asked him why they could not withdraw the complaint. A2 attacked him with sickle on his elbow, thigh, right chest and left leg. A3 attacked the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant with knife over his back and right leg. The injuries suffered by the father of defacto complainant are grievous in nature and the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant and his brother-in-law are simple in nature.

4. On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered in Crime No.375 of 2014 on the file of the Nagamalai Pudhukkottai Police Station, Madurai. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and after completing the legal mandates of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, charges have been framed against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 294(b) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. When the accused were questioned, they denied their involvement and claimed to be tried.

5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW16 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P19 have been marked. Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.7 have been marked. On the side of the accused, DW1 to DW3 have been examined ad no documentary evidence has been marked.

6. After the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge found A1 to A3 not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC (2 counts) and Sect