Advocates:
['M/S J MUTHUKUMARAN', '', 'S REVATHI', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 13.07.2018

PRONOUNCED ON : 24.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.A.No.270 of 2007

Murugan

... Appellant/Accused

Vs

The State Rep by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Villupuram Town Police Station,

Villupuram.

Crime No.478 of 2003

... Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.,

against the judgment made in S.C.No.108 of 2004 dated 26.02.2007

passed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge),

Sessions Division, Villupuram and set the accused/appellant at

liberty.

For Appellant

: Mr.C.D.Johnson

for Mr.J.Muthukumaran

For Respondent : Ms.M.Prabavathi Ganeshram

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arose out of the judgment and conviction

passed in S.C.No.108 of 2004 on the file of the learned Special

Judge, Principal Sessions judge, Sessions Divison, Villupuram

dated 26.02.2007, convicting the appellant for the offence under

Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years

and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- P.W.1

Gangaiamaran is the son of P.W.2 Poongothai and they are

belonging to Adidharaviar community. They owned a house and the

accused also a owned house in front of their house. Both the

houses are situated in railway poramboke. The accused and his

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

mother and his brother encroached some portions of P.W.2's house

and tried to fence in the said encroached land. It was

questioned by P.W.2 family and as such there was previous enmity

between both the families. While so, on 16.07.2003 at about

10.30 a.m., when P.W.2, victim questioned the act of the

accused, he came with Koduval (Knife) and attacked head, jaws,

right hand and back of her body and scolded with filthy language

mentioning her community. As such she sustained grievous injury

and P.W.1 took her by auto to the Government Hospital,

Villupuram. P.W.7, the Doctor examined the victim and treated

her and registered the Accident Register, Ex.P.5. P.W.7 opined

that the injuries are grievous in nature and also found that the

victim sustained fracture in her left hand and also issued wound

certificate Ex.P.6.

3. P.W.1 lodged a complaint and on receipt of the same,

the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.478 of

2003 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)

(V) of SC/ST (PA) Act under Ex.P.7. In turn, he submitted the

First Information Report to P.W.8 the Investigating Officer.

P.W.8 investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the

accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 3

(2)(V) of SCST (PA) Act. Trial court framed charges for the

offence under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST

(PA) Act against the accused and he denied the charges and

claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.4. The trial Court

questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., putting

forth the incriminating materials against the accused, which he

denied toto. Considering the oral and documentary evidences, the

trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused

preferred this appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted that there are contradiction between the eye

witnesses, in respect of the number of persons allegedly

attacked the victim. P.W.1, who admitted the victim P.W.2, in

the hospital and on his statement, which marked as Ex.P.5, the

Accident Register, recorded that the victim was attacked by

t