Madras High Court
CRL RC/2258/2026 of Karupannan Vs Boopathy on 1 October 2026
CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011413282026}
Karupannan
... Petitioner
Vs
1. Boopathy
2. State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police
Velakoundampatty Police Station,
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.763 of 2020)
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 438 & 442 of BNSS
praying to set aside the acquittal Judgment dated 04.12.2025 made in Crl.A.No.151 of 2024 on the file of Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal confirming the Judgment dated 29.02.2024 made in S.T.C.No.1207 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal and convict the 1st Respondent.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.N.Manojkumar [R1]
Mr.A.Amarnath
Additional Public Prosecutor [R2]
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The revision challenges the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.151 of 2024, confirming the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.1207 of 2022, dated 29.02.2024.
CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026
2. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.763 of 2020 registered for the offences under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506 (ii) of IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.10.2020 at 10.30 am, when P.W.1 was standing in front of his house, the accused abused him in filthy language, also slapped him and threatened him with dire consequences. The prosecution had examined the petitioner as PW1 and 7 other witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The Trial Court found that P.W.1 had made an exaggerated allegation and no independent witnesses were cited by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate also found that the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not inspire confidence. Therefore, the trial court acquitted the 1st respondent herein. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of acquittal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 in the proper perspective and therefore, the judgments are liable to be set aside.
4. On perusal of the impugned judgments, it is seen that both Courts had independently assessed the evidence of P.W.1 and the other witnesses who are said to have witnessed the occurrence, viz., P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.2,
CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026
P.W.4 and P.W.6 admitted that they had not witnessed the occurrence. The P.W.1 was disbelieved by both the Courts. In fact, the Courts also found that there was an earlier complaint against the petitioner, which was suppressed by the prosecution. This Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
5. It is well settled that even in an appeal against the acquittal, the Court would not ordinarily interfere if the view of the Trial Court is plausible. In this case, the presumption of innocence was confirmed by two Courts and hence, there is no perversity warranting interference in a revision.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp/ksk
CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. sp To
1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal.
2. The Inspector of Police, Velakoundampatty Police Station, Namakkal District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRL RC No. 2258 of 2026 01-10-2026