Where evidence of a defendant's mental illness emerges during investigation, the police have an affirmative duty to conduct a medical examination. Failure to investigate this aspect, combined with significant inconsistencies in witness testimony, entitles the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

*****

O R D E R

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.,

AND

M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.,

This appeal is listed today under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.B.M.Subash, learned counsel for Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though he has advanced argument in this case, name of one Mr.S.Bharanidharan has been wrongly typed in the order. Hence, the cause title in respect of the appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant requires modification.

3. Finding that there was an inadvertent error in marking the appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant, Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.B.M.Subash, learned counsel for the appellant in the place of Mr.S.Bharanidharan in the cause title and issue a fresh copy of the order to the parties concerned.

4. Except the above modification, remaining portion of the order dated 04.11.2025 stands unaltered.

Crl.A.No.342 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.No.342 of 2019

Rajasekar ... Appellant / Sole Accused

Versus

State by Inspector of Police,

Adiyamankottai Station,

in Crime No.309 of 2013 ... Respondent / Complainant

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2019 made in S.C.No.103/2015 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dharmapuri.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Bharanidharan

for Mr.B.Mohan

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor

assisted by

M/s.M.Arifa Thasneem

JUDGMENT

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The appellant / accused has preferred this appeal challenging the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court at Dharmapuri, sentencing the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 436 IPC and sentencing the appellant to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 [TNPPDL Act].

2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly narrated are as under:

2.1. PW1 is the son of one Perumal. The said Perumal had 3 wives, namely Kanthandammal, Mallammal and Nagammal. PW1 was born to the said Nagammal. Perumal had 12 acres of land, out of which 9 acres of land are agricultural lands and the remaining 3 acres are forest bushes. The said Perumal settled 3 acres of land in favour of his 1st wife and his daughter Dhanabhagyam. Out of the remaining 9 acres, 1 Acre and 87 cents are in the hands of PW1. Remaining extent of lands are in the hands of Mallammal/second wife of Perumal. The residential house situated in the village is in the hands of the accused.

2.2. On 13.11.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., PW1's mother Nagammal and his brother were discussing that proper share was not granted to PW1's mother. While so, upon hearing the same, the accused brought M.O.2 – Reaper log and bet him on his mother's Left Cheek, Right Hand wrist repeatedly. On account of the case, she got bleeding on her ears and also set fire on the PW1 mother's hut. PW1's mother N