Advocates:
['M/s G Mathavan', '', 'PH', 'R Shyamala', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'REPORT RECEIVED D NO DATE']

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 17/11/2022

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.RC(MD)No.145 of 2020

and

Crl.MP(MD)No.1241 of 2020

Murugesan : Petitioner/R2/A2

Vs.

1.State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Thirukokarnam Police Station,

Pudukkottai District.

2.M.Kulandai Theras

3.M.Nirmala Nesamary

4.M.Iruthaya Jeyaseela

5.Minor M.Bennedit

6.MinorM.Robin

(R5 and R6 represented by

Next friend and natural

guardian/mother/R3)

(R3 to R8 impleaded as

per the order, dated 23/02/2021

made in Crl.MP(MD)No.1576 of 2021

in Crl.RC(MD)No.145 of 2022)

: Respondents/Respondents/

Complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed

under sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code

against the judgment, dated 19/09/2019 passed in CA No.20

of 2017 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

Pudukkottai, reversing the Judgment, dated 18/05/2017

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in CC No.

196 of 2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2 to R7 : Mr.R.Saravanakumar

O R D E R

This criminal revision has been filed against the

judgment, dated 19/09/2019 passed in CA No.20 of 2017 by

the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, reversing

the judgment, dated 18/05/2017 passed in CC No.196 of

2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

2.The facts in brief:-

This petitioner is arrayed as A2 in CC No.196 of

2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

According to the prosecution, there was previous enmity

between the de-facto complainant and the accused person

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

herein. In pursuance of the above said previous motive,

on 25/01/2013 at about 5.40 pm, when the de-facto

complainant came to the property with deadly weapons,

abused him in filthy language and A1 caused assault with

Aruval, A2 assaulted with wooden log, A3 and A4 assaulted

him with stick. They also assaulted the witness No.2, who

came to the place of occurrence to prevent the above said

assault. They also criminally intimidated the de-facto

complainant and the witnesses. Based upon the above said

occurrence, the case was registered and final report was

filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

3.On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses

examined and 6 documents were marked. On the side of the

accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4.At the conclusion of the trial process, the

trial court found that the charges framed against the

accused persons were not proved and were acquitted.

Against the above said judgment of acquittal, appeal was

preferred by the de-facto complainant namely Mathiyaas.

That was heard in Crl.A No.20 of 2017 by the Sessions

Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

5.During the course of the above said hearing, it

was found by the first appellate court that no proper

charge was framed against the accused. So finding that

there was grievous injury, the charge was altered by

including section 325 or 326 IPC and a direction was also

issued to the trial court to give opportunity to recall

and re-examine as well as cross examine the witnesses

about the altering of charges. On that ground, the matter

was remitted back to the trial court.

6.Challenging the above said remitted order,

this criminal revision has been preferred.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that even PW1 admitted that no

injury was caused to him, all the weapons that are

allegedly to have used by the accused persons were not

recovered and marked