BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL RC(MD)No.1244 of 2022 Kalyanasundaram ... Petitioner Vs.

State, Through The Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Watrap, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 379 and 401 Cr.P.C, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.84 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur dated 28.11.2022 modified the conviction passed in S.C.No.118 of 2014 by the learned Assistant Session Judge, Srivilliputhur dated 29.07.2022 and allow the Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

Prologue:

This Criminal Revision challenges the concurrent findings of guilt, eventually modified in appeal, arising out of an occurrence dated 05.11.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., in which the injured witness (P.W.1) sustained head and limb injuries allegedly at the hands of the present petitioner (1^st accused) armed with an iron rod. The learned Trial Court had convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Sections 326, 325, 324, read with Section 34 IPC, and acquitted Accused Nos.5 to 8. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, in C.A.No.84 of 2022, while disbelieving the prosecution insofar as the graver charges and the participation of Accused Nos.2 to 4, sustained the conviction against 1^st Accused only under Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence. The petitioner who was the Appellant/1^st Accused before the Lower Courts, now invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. Gist of the learned Trial Court Judgment in S.C. No. 118 of 2014:

2.1. The prosecution case was that, owing to prior rivalry in tractor earth-filling work, Accused Nos.1 to 8 formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted P.W.1 with iron rods and sticks near Maharajapuram Pandian Grama Bank at 7.30 p.m. on 05.11.2013. On the basis of the testimony of the injured and occurrence witnesses, P.W.Nos.1 and 2, medical evidence of P.W.Nos. 9 and 10 through whom Ex.P-6 accident register, Ex.P-7 x-ray series, were marked. The learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution case narrated in Exhibit P-1 complaint is proved as against the Accused Nos.1 to 4. The scene-mahazar witnesses -P.W.Nos. 5 and 6, and recovery made by P.W.8 (VAO) and P.W.12 (I.O.) were also relied by the learned Trial Court to come to a conclusion that the occurrence has been duly proved.

2.2. However, disbelieving the case under Sections 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 323 and 506(ii)/149 IPC, the learned Trial Court acquitted the Accused Nos.5 to 8. The learned Trial Court found that only Accused Nos.1 to 4 participated and that the 1^st accused caused two head blows with an iron rod, with fractures proved to the limbs. Thus, the learned Trial Court, acquitting Accused Nos.5 to 8, convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, each read with Section 34 IPC and sentences were imposed as follows: (i) five years rigorous imprisionment and Rs.3,000/- fine, in default, two months simple imprisionment each under Sec. 326 r/w 34 (ii) four years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.2,000/- in default, one month simple imprisonment each under Sec. 325 r/w 34 (iii) One year rigorous Imprisonment each under Sec. 324 r/w 34, with concurrency and set-

off.

3. Gist of the Judgment in Criminal Appeal in C.A.No. 84 of

2022:

The learned Appellate Court re-assessed Ex.P-1 (complaint) and Ex.P-6 (accident register) noting that the earliest version mentioned four assailants and named only Accused No.1 and came to a decision that the later escalation to eight was not satisfactorily explained. Finding material contradictions vis-à-vis Accused Nos.2 to 4 and the lack of clear proof of common intention, the learned Assistant Session Judge, Srivi