CRL RC/1394/2022 of RAJA @ RASU Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS on 23 September 2026

ORDER

The Criminal Revision challenges the judgment of conviction passed in Crl.A.No.106 of 2021 dated 08.08.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal, confirming the order of conviction dated 28.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.233 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal, holding the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 452, 326, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 506(ii) of the IPC. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2(a). It is the case of the prosecution that on account of prior enmity, on 02.08.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner committed criminal trespass into the house of P.W.1/de-facto complainant; that he had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the de-facto complainant by stabbing him with a knife on his stomach and also committed the offence of criminal intimidation.

(b) . It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had asked the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 to remove the coconut trees that were protruding into his land; and that since P.W.1 had not removed the trees, the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences.

(c) . On the complaint given by P.W.1, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 599 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC, and the respondent filed the final report after investigation.

(d) . Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The petitioner/accused neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents.

(f) The trial Court found that the petitioner was guilty as stated above, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 3(a). Mr.D.Shivakumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, contended that the petitioner has been falsely prosecuted; that for an alleged occurrence that took place on 02.08.2015, the complaint was lodged only on 03.08.2015; that the witnesses have admitted the presence of the police in the evening of 02.08.2015, much before the FIR was registered; that though the Doctor/P.W.5 had opined that there was blood on the dress of P.W.1, the dress materials were not seized; that the witnesses have admitted that several persons were available at the time of the occurrence and none of them were examined; and that the Doctor, P.W.5, had deposed that it was possible that the injury could have been caused by a fall on a sharp object and therefore, prayed for setting aside the finding of guilt.

(b) . The learned counsel would further submit that in any case, the sentence is excessive, and considering the fact that more than ten years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence, the petitioner may not be sentenced to imprisonment; and that he would pay sufficient compensation to the victim.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, who would submit that all the points raised by the petitioner have been considered by the Courts below and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and their evidence cannot be discredited merely because they are interested witnesses; and that the delay by itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1.

5. As stated above, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been examined as eye witnesses, and P.W.1 is the injured eyewitness. P.W.2 is his wife. P.W.3 is his brother in law. P.W.5 is a Doctor who had treated the victim. P.W.6 is the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and filed a final report for the offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 326, and 506(ii).

6. It is the version of the witnesses that after P.W.1 was stabbed, he fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital, and a statement was recorded from him at the hospital. Though in the FIR, it is stated that the statement was recorded on 02.08.2015 and the FIR based on the statement was registered on 03.08.2015, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.6 had clarified in the cross-examination that the information was received only on 03.08.2015. The discrepancy in the date mentioned in the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the case would not render the evidence of the witnesses unreliable.

7. The suggestion put by the defence to the witnesses is that when P.W.1/de-facto complainant attempted to attack the petitioner with a knife during a wordy altercation, he fell down and accidentally got injured by that knife. The defence is highly improbable. The petitioner had not given any complaint that P.W.1, tried to attack him. The injuries sustained by P.W.1 have been spoken to by Doctor/P.W.5, and the wound certificate/Ex.P3 shows that there was a “stab puncture of 1.5 cms;” and that a finger could enter the wound. The nature of the injury and the evidence of the Doctor further falsify the defence version.

8. In any case, nothing has been brought on record from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to discredit their version as regards the occurrence. P.W.3, though not an eyewitness, had seen the petitioner coming out of the house with a knife. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit him. In such circumstances, non-examination of independent witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve the injured eyewitness and the other witnesses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings holding the petitioner guilty of causing bodily injury to the de-facto complainant P.W.1 by trespassing into his property cannot be faulted.

9. The offence under Section 452 of the IPC is made out as the petitioner had entered the house with preparation to cause hurt. The question is whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The offence under Section 326 of the IPC would be made out only if the hurt falls within any of the clauses under Section 320 of the IPC. It is not the prosecution case that it falls within any of the first seven clauses. It is the prosecution case that the hurt had endangered his life, and the Doctor had certified that it is grievous in nature. The evidence suggests that the petitioner was hospitalised for seven days.

10. It is well settled that in order to attract the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, the victim must have sustained grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the IPC. The certificate of the doctor stating that the injury is grievous is an opinion and would only be a guidance to the Court to ascertain, if the hurt falls under any of the clauses under Section 320 of the IPC. In this regard, we may refer to the

Judgment of this Court in Mariappan Vs. State in Crl.R.C.No.176 of 2011 dated 24.10.2026. The relevant paragraphs read as follows: “18. ‘Hurt’ is commonly known as ‘simple hurt/injury’. It is punishable under section 323 I.P.C However, when the said hurt was caused by a dangerous weapon or means then it is punishable under section 324 I.P.C and if the hurt is grievous as defined in Section 320 I.P.C, then it is punishable under section 325 I.P.C When such ‘grievous’ hurt has been caused by a dangerous weapon further higher punishment is provided in section 326 I.P.C. “19. From the above, what emerges is that whether the injury/hurt is ‘simple’ or ‘grievous’ does not depends on the Doctor's evidence, medical opinion. But it is based on the nature of the injury, as given in section 319, 320 I.P.C, as the case may be. However, in this respect, medical evidence assists the Court to classify the injury. Thus, nature of injury in the legal sense and the nature of the injury in the medical sense are different. What the Court has to do in a hurt case is to classify the hurt as simple or grievous as defined in section 319 or in Section 320 I.P.C.”

11. Considering the nature of the injury and the period of hospitalisation and other facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the injuries sustained would not fall under any of the clauses under Section 320 of the IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Section 326 of the IPC cannot be sustained. Hence, the petitioner is only guilty of the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. The evidence adduced also

suggests the commission of the offence under Section 506(ii) of the IPC as well.

12. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would make a fervent appeal that the alleged occurrence took place ten years ago and the sentence of imprisonment at this stage would be disproportionate and prayed for modification of sentence.

13. Considering the age of the petitioner, the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2015, the other nature of the injuries, and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed for all the offences can be reduced to two months of simple imprisonment, which are ordered to run concurrently, and the petitioner can be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and, in default, to suffer three months of simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, shall be adjusted towards the compensation payable by him. The period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

14. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN J. dk Pre-delivery order in CRL RC No. 1394 of 2022 and CRL MP Nos. 15486 & 15487 of 2022 23-09-2026