Partly allowed¶50

Rajagopal v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Apr 2026CRL RC/1002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022; High Court of Judicature at Madras; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; decided 02-04-2026; criminal revision; Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.; conviction upheld under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC; sentence reduced to period already undergone; stab injury with sulukki; grievous injury; injured eyewitness P.W.1; interested witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2; absence of motive; medical evidence P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12; SC.No.176 of 2013; Crl.A.No.42 of 2019; Cr.No.357 of 2010; Vedaraniyam Police Station; Nagapattinam; fines Rs.500 and Rs.5,000; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC confirmed; sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. ¶50

Rajagopal Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC confirmed; sentence under Section 307 IPC reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC by the Trial Court, as confirmed in appeal, is sustainable despite the alleged absence of motive and the contention that P.Ws 1 and 2 were interested witnesses. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The Court found no ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with regard to the conviction imposed under Section 294(b) of IPC.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The injured/P.W.1 is an eyewitness whose evidence was trustworthy and believable, and on that oral evidence the Trial Court and the Appellate Court concluded that the accused committed the offence under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC.

¶44

Key takeaways

The evidence of the doctors P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.12 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1/injured, and the injury was found to be grievous in nature.ratio¶43
Considering the petitioner's age and the period of imprisonment already undergone, the sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC was modified to the period already undergone by him, the conviction being left undisturbed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment in Crl.A.No.42 of 2019 (Principal District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, dated 29.03.2022) confirming the conviction in SC.No.176 of 2013 (Assistant Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, dated 09.07.2019) under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC. Occurrence of 11.10.2010: the accused, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, abused the injured and stabbed him with a sulukki in the left armpit causing grievous injury (FIR Cr.No.357/2010, Vedaraniyam Police Station). The challenge based on absence of motive and on P.Ws 1 and 2 being interested witnesses was rejected: the injured eyewitness P.W.1's evidence was held trustworthy and believable, corroborated by the doctors P.Ws 9, 10 and 12, and no ground was found to interfere with the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC. Considering the petitioner's age and the period of imprisonment already undergone, the sentence under Section 307 IPC was modified to the period already undergone. Criminal Revision partly allowed. (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.; decided 02-04-2026.)

¶1

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶6

Rajagopal S/O. Subramanian, Sembodai North, Vedharanyam Tk, Nagapattinam District.

..Petitioner(s)

State Rep By

Inspector of Police, Vedaraniyam Police Station, Vedharanyam Tk, Nagapattinam District. Cr.No. 357 of 2010.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the judgement made in Crl.A. No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court Nagapattinam dated 29.03.2022 confirming the Judgement in SC.No. 176 of 2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nagapattinam dated 09.07.2019.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): M/s. A. Sundara Vadhanan M.Arun For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment made in

¶16

Crl.A.No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court Nagapattinam dated 29.03.2022 confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.176 of 2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nagapattinam dated 09.07.2019 and pass orders.

¶17

Page1 of 8

¶18

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

¶19

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2010 at 7:30 p.m the accused came to the house of the injured under the influence of alcohol and uttered obscene and uttering filthy language against him and the same was questioned by the injured. Due to which the accused replied that you and your family members has lodged a police complaint against me and stabbed the injured by using the weapon sulukki in left side armpit and caused grievous injuries to him. Thereafter the injured was taken to Government Hospital, Vedaranyam at about 9.45 pm for treatment and again referred to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital and operation was made on PW.1 and the sulukki-iron rod was removed from left side armpit of P.W.1. On the next day a case was registered in Cr.No.357/2010 under Sections 294(b), 307 of IPC. After completing investigation final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

¶21

In order to prove the complaint on the side of the prosecution 14 person were examined P.Ws 1 to 14 and 9 documents were marked 9 documents Ex.P.1 to P.9 and one material object was marked. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no documents were marked.

¶22

On a perusal of Oral and Documentary evidence the accused is convicted for Section 294(b) of IPC and a fine of RS.500/- is imposed in default one month simple imprisonment is imposed as envisages u/s 235 (ii) of Cr.P.C

¶23

Page2 of 8

¶24

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

¶25

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶26

and for Section 307 of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I for 5 years and also to pay a fine of RS.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 307 of IPC as envisages u/s 235(ii) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.42 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court Nagapattinamand the same was dismissed on 29.03.2022 and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision case.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no motive to

¶28

do away the life of the accused. Hence there is an ingredient to attract the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. Further fron analyzing the entire oral evidence of the PW1, it would be seen that there is no strong motive against the accused to foist a false case. He further submitted that P.W.1 and P.W2 were interested witnesses and therefore their evidences should not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the case against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed for acquittal of the accused.

¶29

Per Contra the learned Government Advocate submitted that the accused is residing near the house of the complainant and there was a enmity between them regarding the grazing of goat and hen at the place of the accused. Therefore, there was a complaint as against the accused for which an enquiry

¶30

was conducted by the respondent police. Hence the accused had motive to do

¶31

Page3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶34

away the life of the accused. On the date of the occurrence the accused came to the house of the injured and abused him and when the same was questioned by

¶35

the injured, the accused attempted to murder the deceased by using the weapon sulukki. Immediately he was taken to the hospital were P.W.9 gave first aid treatment to the injured. Ex.P.3/Accident Register reveals that the injuries sustained by the injured is grievous in nature. P.W.2 who is the son of the P.W.1 has categorically deposed about the specific overtact as against the petitioner. Further the injured was examined as P.W.1 and he categorically deposed about the occurrence and his evidence is accepted by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court has rightly convicted the accused and there is no necessity to interfere with the same.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent

¶37

and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

The crux of the complaint is that the accused used to graze his

¶39

cattle in the land belonging to P.W.1. Therefore, the accused had the motive to do away the life of the injured. On the date of the occurrence the accused came to his house and stabbed the injured by using the weapon sulukki in left side armpit and caused grievous injuries to him. Thereafter, he was taken to Vedarnayam Government Hospital for treatment and again refereed to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital and operation was made on PW.1 and

¶40

Page4 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶43

the sulukki-iron rod was removed from left side armpit of P.W.1. Thereafter he was treated by P.W.10 who has deposed that due to stab injury his left hand rotation is restrained. Therefore, the injury was is grievous in nature and the injured was examined as P.W.1 have clearly deposed that the accused has committed the offence. Further the evidence of the Doctors i.e P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.12 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1/ injured. Further P.W.10 has also opined that the injury is grievous in nature and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P.4.

¶44

The Injured/P.W.1 is an eye witness and his evidence is trustworthy and believable and on the basis of oral evidence of. P.W.1 the Trial Court and the Appellate court has come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence under Sections 294(b) and 307 of I.P.C.

¶45

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court with regard to the conviction imposed under Section 294(b) of IPC. Insofar as sentence passed under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, considering the petitioner’s age and considering the period of imprisonment already undergone, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone by him.

¶46

Page5 of 8

¶47

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

¶48

CRL RC No. 1002 of 2022

¶49

11. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision is

¶50

partly allowed.

¶51

02-04-2026