Dismissed¶36

Muthusamy v. State rep.by, Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Mar 2026CRL MP/719/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence refused; Section 430(1) BNSS 2023; acid attack with concentrated sulphuric acid on Professors PW13 and PW14; convictions under Sections 326 (2 counts) and 324 (2 counts) IPC; Ex.D2 discharge summary accidental burns entry held of no avail; no material of false implication; Madras High Court; Sunder Mohan J.; CRL MP No. 719 of 2026; CRL RC No. 123 of 2026; C.A.No.337 of 2019; SC.No.209 of 2015; Cr.No.325/2013 Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore; petitioner in custody from 29.01.2026; revision to be listed for early final hearing.

What did the court decide?

The evidence of PW13 and PW14 would suggest that the petitioner had deliberately poured acid on their heads; both witnesses took treatment and fortunately survived. ¶31

Muthusamy Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner should be suspended pending disposal of the criminal revision petition (CRL RC No. 123 of 2026) challenging the appellate judgment in C.A.No.337 of 2019.

¶23

Court's answer

The evidence of PW13 and PW14 would suggest that the petitioner had deliberately poured acid on their heads; both witnesses took treatment and fortunately survived.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The innocuous entries in the discharge summary (Ex.D2) that the victims had sustained accidental burns would be of no avail to the petitioner in the light of the cogent evidence of PW13 and PW14.

¶36

Key takeaways

There is nothing to suggest that PW13 and PW14 had a grudge against the petitioner to falsely implicate him.ratio¶36
This Court finds no reason to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner; hence the petition for suspension of sentence is dismissed.ratio¶36
Considering that a fixed sentence of imprisonment has been imposed on the petitioner, the revision may be listed for final hearing at an early date, subject to the orders of the roster Judge concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence pending disposal of CRL RC No. 123 of 2026 against the judgment in C.A.No.337 of 2019 dated 17.11.2025 (V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore), which partially modified the conviction and sentence in SC.No.209 of 2015 dated 14.10.2019 (Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore) under Sections 326 (2 counts) and 324 (2 counts) IPC, sentences running concurrently. Allegation: on 03.05.2013 the petitioner, a Museum Keeper opposed to the Management, poured concentrated Sulphuric Acid on the heads of two Professors (PW13 and PW14) who sustained burn injuries. Held: the discharge summary entries (Ex.D2) recording accidental burns were innocuous and of no avail against the cogent evidence of the injured witnesses; nothing suggested false implication out of grudge; there was no reason to suspend the sentence. Petition dismissed; revision directed to be listed for early final hearing subject to the roster Judge.

¶1

CRL MP No. 719 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 23-02-2026

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 04-03-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

CRL MP No. 719 of 2026 AND CRL RC No. 123 of 2026

Muthusamy

..Petitioner

State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District. Cr.No.325/2013.

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023, to suspend the sentence of imprisonment, as confirmed with partial modification by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.337 of 2019 dated 17.11.2025, arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in SC.No.209 of 2015, pending disposal of the present criminal revision petition.

¶14

For Petitioner: M/s.A.Ram Kumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

CRL MP No. 719 of 2026

¶18

Order

¶19

The petitioner has preferred the above revision challenging the judgment

¶20

passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.337 of 2019 dated 17.11.2025, partially modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

¶21

Coimbatore, vide judgment in S.C.No.209 of 2015 dated 14.10.2019 as follows:

¶22

Offence under Section	Sentence imposed
326 (2 counts) IPC	For each count-RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d RI for 6 months.
324(2 counts)IPC	For each count-RI for 6 months
The sentences were dir	ected to run concurrently.

¶23

The instant petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner, pending disposal of the above revision.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a Museum Keeper and was a member of the Non-Teaching Staff in the College where the witnesses were working as Professors; that on 03.05.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., when the petitioner entered into the Zoology Lab, where a practical examination for under graduate students were going on, he was reprimanded by PW13, a Professor in the College; that later at about 1.30 p.m., when PW14 and another Professor were verifying the marks in the practical examination, the accused entered into the Lab with concentrated Sulphuric Acid and poured the acid on the head of PW13 and poured the remaining acid on the head of PW14;

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRL MP No. 719 of 2026

¶28

that both of them sustained burn injuries; and thus, the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences.

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of the injured witnesses; that in the discharge summary issued to the witness-PW14, which was marked as Ex.D2, it is stated that the victims had sustained accidental burns; that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted only because he was a member of the Non-Teaching Staff Association and was opposed to the Management; that the petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2026 and hence, prayed for suspension of sentence, pending disposal of the revision.

¶30

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that the petitioner committed a grave offence; that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity; that the evidence of PW13 and PW14 are cogent and convincing; and that no ground had been made out by the petitioner for granting suspension of sentence.

¶31

As stated above, the case of the prosecution is that due to prior enmity, the petitioner had poured acid on the head of both PW13 and PW14. The evidence of PW13 and PW14 would suggest that the petitioner had deliberately poured acid on their heads. Both the witnesses had taken treatment and fortunately

¶32

Page3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

CRL MP No. 719 of 2026

¶35

survived. The innocuous entries in the discharge summary that they had

¶36

sustained accidental burns would be of no avail to the petitioner in the light of the cogent evidence of PW13 and PW14. There is nothing to suggest that PW13 and PW14 had a grudge against the petitioner to falsely implicate him. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Hence the petition for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶37

However, considering the fact that a fixed sentence of imprisonment has been imposed on the petitioner, the revision may be listed for final hearing, at an early date subject to the orders of the roster Judge concerned.

¶38

04-03-2026

¶39

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶40

ars

¶41

¶42