##PAGE1##

Crl.R.C.No.1736 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.R.C.No.1736 of 2023

Dharmaraj ...Petitioner

-Vs-

The State Rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Veerapandi Police Station,

Tiruppur District.

Crime No.408 of 2019 ...Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of

Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment, conviction passed against the

petitioner in C.A.No.111 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and

Sessions, Tiruppur, on 09.08.2023 confirmed the judgment passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruppur, was pleased to convict the

petitioner in C.C.No.67 of 2020 dated 02.08.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raj Kumar

For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment of the learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 01:23:20 pm )

##PAGE2## ##PAGE3##

Crl.R.C.No.1736 of 2023

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra, submitted

that though the witnesses were disbelieved insofar as the second accused is

concerned, the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable

to our country; and that therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

were right in believing the evidence of PW1 and PW2 insofar as the

petitioner is concerned.

5. As stated already, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.

PW1 is the wife of the injured witness, PW2. The other witnesses are formal

witnesses; and there is no dispute with regard to the facts deposed by them.

The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1, who is

stated to have lodged the complaint, had denied her signature in the

complaint. Be that as it may, it is the version of PW1 that the first accused

punched the face of the victim, PW2, and caused bleeding injury on the nose;

and thereafter, both the accused kicked the victim with their legs. PW2, the

victim, however, gave a different version of the incident. He stated that the

petitioner, after attacking him on the nose, threw a stone at his leg; and that

the second accused also threw a stone at his leg. The appellant had elicited

from the witnesses that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 01:23:20 pm )

##PAGE4## ##PAGE5##

Crl.R.C.No.1736 of 2023

inclined to set aside the judgments passed by the Courts below. The

petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the

petitioner shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed shall stand

discharged.

8. Accordingly, the above criminal revision petition stands allowed.

18.12.2025

cda

To

1.The Principal District and Sessions, Tiruppur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruppur.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Veerapandi Police Station,

Tiruppur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 01:23:20 pm )

##PAGE6## Click Here to Read the rest of this document