CRL RC/1988/2026 of Charles Mary Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This matter is listed today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, vide order dated 11.09.2026, disposed of this revision with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in total. However, as there was no specific direction as to whether the said amount is to be deposited before the trial court or paid directly to the victim, the petitioner has been unable to comply with the direction of this Court. Thus, he prayed for suitable directions in this regard.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the paragraph No.8 of the order dated 11.09.2026 shall stand replaced with the following paragraph:-

8. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner is a lady, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment till rising of Court and the petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim for the offence under Section 355 IPC, and in default, to suffer three months of Simple Imprisonment, and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim for the offence under Section 323 IPC, and in default, to suffer three months of Simple Imprisonment. The sentence of fine imposed for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is confirmed. The learned Magistrate shall ensure that the sentence till rising of Court is served and compensation is paid by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the petitioner shall be secured to serve the default sentence.

4. Registry is directed to issue order copy afresh forthwith, by making the aforesaid corrections in the order dated 11.09.2026.

5. All the other observations and directions in the order dated 11.09.2026 shall remain intact. 30.09.2026 skt

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

To:

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026 30.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-09-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL RC No. 1988 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 17015 and 17016 of 2026 Charles Mary, W/o.Anthonysamy, No.33B, Sagayapuram Village, Elthagiri Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.51/2020 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, to call for the records in Crl.A No.25 of 2025 dated 13-8-2026 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming and modifying the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri, in C.C.No.154 of 2020 dated 24-02-2025 to sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 for the offences under section 294 (b) IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and further sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under Section 323 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment and set aside the same.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment passed in C.A.No.25 of 2025, which partly allowed the appeal against the conviction in C.C.No.154 of 2020, holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b), 355, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had prior enmity with the victim, PW1; that PW1 was working as a tractor driver under one Raja; that while he was standing near an Aavin Shop at Elathagiri on 21.02.2020 at about 11.30 a.m.; the petitioner came there and abused him in obscene language; that she removed her slippers, and assaulted PW1 on his face. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1, Anthonisamy, pushed PW1 down and kicked him on his back, and A2, Ruben, assaulted him with a coconut frond, which was witnessed by PW2 and PW3. On the complaint given by PW1, a case was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 355, and 506(i) of the IPC.

3. Upon investigation, a final report was filed against the accused for the said offences. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found that the involvement of A1 and A2 was in doubt as there were material contradictions as regards their involvement in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and acquitted them. The petitioner was convicted for the following offences. Rank of the accused Conviction under Sections Sentence awarded Compensation A3 294(b) IPC To pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Rs. 50,000/- 355 IPC Sentenced to undergo one year of SI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month of SI 325 IPC Sentenced to undergo two years of SI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one month of SI

4. The Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment, altered the conviction and sentence as follows: “The conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 355 IPC were confirmed; the conviction for the offence under Section 325 IPC was set aside, and instead, the petitioner was convicted for the altered offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year of Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to undergo two weeks of Simple Imprisonment.”

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court, having acquitted A1 and A2, against whom serious allegations were made of assaulting with a coconut frond and kicking the victim, ought to have acquitted the petitioner as well. He further submitted that the overt act attributed to the petitioner is that she had slapped the victim with a slipper, and that the sentence in any case is disproportionate, and prayed for reducing the sentence.

6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. It is seen that the Appellate Court had acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC since the prosecution had not established that any grievous injury was sustained by the victim. There is no challenge to the said finding. The evidence of PW1 has been believed by the Courts below as regards the assault made by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact believing the evidence of PW1 as regards the offences under Sections 355 IPC and 323 IPC.

8. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner is a lady, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment till rising of Court and the petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

Section 355 IPC, and in default, to suffer three months of Simple Imprisonment, and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC, and in default, to suffer three months of Simple Imprisonment. The sentence of fine imposed for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is confirmed. The learned Magistrate shall ensure that the sentence till rising of Court is served and compensation is paid by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the petitioner shall be secured to serve the default sentence.

9. With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 11-09-2026 CDA To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )

Crl.R.C.No.1988 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. CDA CRL RC No. 1988 of 2026 11-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:31:34 pm )