CRL A(MD)/286/2020 of S.Selvam @ Selvaraj Vs The Deputy Superintendent of police on 12 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned Principal District Special and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.33 of 2015, dated 11.07.2019. The Case

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, Mr.Veeraiah (PW1), is a member of a Scheduled Caste, while the appellants belong to a dominant caste. The two parties were engaged in a property dispute, in which the de facto complainant obtained a decree in his favour from a Civil Court. The appellants therefore harboured enmity against him.

3. On 02.09.2014 at about 22.00 hours, the appellants (A1 and A2), along with their parents (the 3rd accused, who has since died, and the 4th accused, who was acquitted by the Trial Court), went to the front yard of the de facto complainant’s house and created a ruckus. They abused him and others by their caste name. The appellants then attempted to kill the de facto complainant with sickles and caused simple injuries on the left side of his chest and the left side of his neck.

When his wife, Mrs.Chandrakala (PW2), intervened to save him, the second appellant attacked her with a sickle and caused grievous hurt on her head and left hand. The accused left the scene after threatening to kill them.

4. A First Information Report was registered in Crime No.305 of 2014 by the respondent Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the evidence and, on completion of the investigation, filed a final report against all four accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.

5. The learned Magistrate took the final report on file as P.R.C.No.4 of 2015, furnished copies to the accused and, after following the due process, committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, which is the Special Court under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. All four accused were tried. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents and 2 material objects. The defence examined no witness and exhibited only two documents. The case against A3 abated on his death during the trial.

6. After considering the entire evidence, the learned Trial Judge acquitted A4 of all charges. He also acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 294(b) read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and convicted them only under Section 307 of the IPC. Each appellant was sentenced to five years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence. The fine has been paid. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Point for Consideration Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC are sustainable

9. Discussion and Findings

(i) The evidence: PW1 and PW2 are the injured eyewitnesses. PW3 and PW4 admitted that they did not witness the occurrence, and their evidence does not advance the prosecution case. PW5, the witness to the disclosure statement and the seizure of sickles, turned hostile. PW6 is an independent eyewitness who corroborated PW1 and PW2 and also proved the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5). PW8, Dr.Amudhalakshmi, examined PW1 and PW2 on 02.09.2014, immediately after the occurrence. She proved the wound certificate (Ex.P6) and deposed that PW1 had suffered simple injuries. She also proved the Accident Register (Ex.P7) relating to PW2 and spoke of the injuries found on her. PW11, Dr.Mohammed Gouse, certified in Ex.P10 that the injuries sustained by PW2 were grievous in nature.

(ii) Identity of the assailants: PW1 and PW2 clearly identified the appellants as their assailants. Their evidence is corroborated on material particulars by the independent eyewitness, PW6, and is consistent with the medical evidence, which establishes both the nature of the injuries and their timing. Nothing on record furnishes a ground to disbelieve or discard the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW6. The prosecution has therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants attacked PW1 and PW2 and caused the injuries. What remains to be examined is whether the attack was accompanied by the intention or knowledge required to constitute the offence of attempt to murder.

(iii) The test: In Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and Another (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 537), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the essential ingredient of an offence of attempt to murder is the intention or knowledge to cause death, which must be established independently of the act itself. The Court further held that the gravity of the injury, by itself, cannot be determinative of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, unless the prosecution also establishes mens rea. It follows that the nature of the injuries cannot decide the matter; the intention must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Equally, Section 307 does not require that the injury caused should be fatal or even grievous, so the fact that PW1 suffered only simple injuries does not, by itself, negate an intention to kill. The relevant circumstances are the motive, the weapon, the manner of the assault, the part of the body targeted, the number of blows and the conduct of the assailants before and after the attack.

10. Whether the intention to kill is established? Applying that test, this Court has considered the entire evidence and finds that the following circumstances, taken together, establish the necessary intention: Motive: There was a long-standing property dispute between the parties, and the de facto complainant had obtained a decree against the appellants. This furnishes a clear motive.

(a) Premeditation: The appellants went to the house of the injured persons at about 22.00 hours, armed with sickles. They were not engaged in a chance encounter or a sudden quarrel; they carried weapons to the premises of the victims. This shows premeditation and a prior intention to attack, and the attack on both PW1 and PW2 was in pursuance of that intention.

(b) Weapon: The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 shows that the appellants were armed with sickles (M.O.1 and M.O.2), each about 77 cm long according to the description in the Seizure Memorandum. A sickle of that size is a formidable weapon, capable of causing fatal injury if used on a vital part.

(c) Part of the body targeted and repetition of the attack: PW1 and PW2 and the independent witness PW6 speak of repeated blows. PW1

sustained a cut injury each on the neck and on the chest. PW2 sustained a head injury and injuries on her left wrist and the little finger of her left hand. The injuries on the neck, chest and head show that the appellants aimed at vital parts. The injuries on the wrist and finger are consistent with PW2 raising her hand to ward off the blows, and are therefore defensive injuries.

(d) Cessation of the attack: The appellants and the others left only upon the intervention of others, and not because they had voluntarily desisted. The fact that the injuries turned out to be less serious than they might have been is thus attributable to the timely intervention and to the resistance of the victims, and not to any absence of intention on the part of the appellants.

11. The combination of motive, premeditation, lethal weapons, blows directed at vital parts and repeated assaults leaves no reasonable inference other than that the appellants intended to kill. The requirement laid down in Roshan Lal that mens rea be established independently of the injury is therefore satisfied. The learned Trial Judge rightly held both appellants guilty under Section 307 of the IPC.

The framing of the charge:

12. The charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed against both appellants for attempting to kill PW1 and PW2, but it was framed as a single count, and the appellants were convicted on that single count. Strictly, the attacks on two different persons warranted a separate charge, and a conviction, on each count, and the learned Trial Judge erred in not proceeding in that manner. However, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants alone, and no appeal or revision has been preferred against the omission. It would be inappropriate for this Court, in an appeal by the convicted persons, to convict them on an additional count and thereby leave them worse off than they were before the appeal. Moreover, the omission has not prejudiced the appellants, as they had full notice of the allegations concerning both victims and defended the case on that footing. This Court therefore declines to convict the appellants on an additional count. The prosecution has proved the charge under Section 307 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction does not call for interference. Sentence:

13. Section 307 of the IPC prescribes no minimum sentence, so the

quantum must be fixed having regard to the facts of the case and the principle of proportionality. The following circumstances weigh in favour of the appellants:

(i) There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have any criminal antecedents.

(ii) The first appellant is now 50 years old and the second appellant is 48 years old.

(iii) The appellants have faced the ordeal of trial and appeal since 2014, a period of about twelve years, and have borne the anxiety and uncertainty that accompany prolonged criminal proceedings.

(iv) The injuries to PW1 were simple in nature. The injuries to PW2, though grievous, did not result in any permanent disability or privation of any part of the body, and she recovered from them.

(v) The offence arose out of a continuing property dispute, and not from any independent criminal design.

14. Against these, the Court has borne in mind the seriousness of the offence: an armed, premeditated attack on a couple at their own home at night. A reduction in sentence cannot be allowed to diminish that gravity. Balancing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, this Court is of the view that a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, together with the fine already imposed, is adequate and proportionate, and it is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from five years to three years. The fine imposed by the Trial Court is not interfered with, and it has already been remitted. The appellants are entitled to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

Result:

15. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC in its judgment dated 11.07.2019 in S.C. No.33 of 2015 is upheld. The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years awarded to the appellants is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. Each appellant is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. As the fine has already been paid, no default sentence is prescribed in this appeal. The appellants are entitled to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone.

16. The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately to undergo the remaining period of the sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the Trial Court shall issue a warrant for their apprehension and shall execute the sentence. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Indu To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of police Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Copy To : Section Officer ( VR Section ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

D.LINGESWARAN, J. Indu Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020 12-11-2026