T. RAJAN, S/O.DHASAN, vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.131 of 2019
CNR:{HCMD010345132019}
T.Rajan
..Appellant
Vs
The Inspector of Police,
Nithiraivillai Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
Crime No.306 Of 2006
..Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in S.C.No.170 of 2017 on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and set aside the
conviction passed by judgment dated 16.07.2018.
For Appellant :Mr.S.Muthu Malai Raja
For Respondent :Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of the Assistant
Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari District, in S.C.No.170 of
2017, dated 16.07.2018.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
The case of the prosecution
2. The appellant and PW1 were friends. On 25.11.2006, at about
3.00 PM, they had a wordy quarrel in which PW1 abused the appellant,
his mother and his sister in filthy language. The appellant, therefore,
harboured an intention to kill PW1. On 27.11.2006, at about 7.30 PM,
the two consumed liquor together and then went to their respective
houses. At about midnight, the appellant trespassed into the house of
PW1, who was asleep. The appellant stamped his foot on the chest of
PW1, cut off his private part with a knife, took away the severed part
and ran from the house. PW1 was taken to the hospital, his statement
was recorded, and an FIR was registered on 28.11.2006. The police
investigated the case and arrested the accused. Pursuant to his
disclosure statement, they recovered the severed part and the knife, and
then filed a final report against him.
The judgment of the Trial Court
3. On completion of the investigation, the Trial Court framed the
appropriate charges and conducted the trial. The prosecution examined
12 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents and 6 material objects. The
accused neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. On
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
a consideration of the entire evidence, the Trial Court convicted and
sentenced the accused as follows:
Section of Law Sentence of
Imprisonment
Fine
452 of IPC Three years Simple
Imprisonment
Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo
three months Simple
Imprisonment
307 of IPC Seven years Simple
Imprisonment
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
three months Simple
Imprisonment
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
Submissions of the parties
4. The learned counsel for the appellant first prayed for an
acquittal on three grounds. First, the house in which the occurrence
took place had a door, and the appellant could have entered only by
breaking it open, yet there is no evidence that the door was broken.
Second, the occurrence took place in darkness at midnight, so even
PW1 could not have seen his assailant and had wrongly identified the
appellant. Third, PW1 had illicit intimacy with several women in the
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
village, so some aggrieved person could have committed the crime,
and the appellant was falsely implicated.
5. In the alternative, the learned counsel contended that the
prosecution had not established any intention to kill. Even if the facts
were admitted, the offence would fall under Section 326 of IPC and
not under Section 307 of IPC, and the Trial Court had therefore
wrongly framed the charge under Section 307 of IPC and wrongly
convicted the appellant under it.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that
the intention was writ large, as severing the private part would, in the
normal course, result in the death of the injured person if not treated
properly. For this purpose, he relied upon the evidence of the doctor,
PW8 Dr.Anup Mannali. He accordingly prayed that the conviction and
sentence be sustained.
Discussion
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions. The
following questions arise for determination: (i) whether the prosecution
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
has established that the appellant was the assailant and that he trespassed
into the house of PW1; (ii) whether the offence is one under Section 307
of IPC or only under Section 326 of IPC; and (iii) whether the sentence
calls for any modification.
(i) Identity of the assailant and the trespass
8. PW1 is the injured eyewitness. He not only identified the
appellant but also spoke about the quarrel of 25.11.2006 and the
motive it gave the appellant. He deposed that on 27.11.2006, at about
7.30 PM, the appellant invited him to drink, brought the liquor himself,
and drank with him, and that at about 9.00 PM they parted and went to
their respective houses. While PW1 was sleeping at about midnight,
the accused came to the spot shouting invectives, placed his leg on the
chest of PW1, cut off his private part and ran away with the severed
part. The mother and sister of PW1, who were sleeping in the next
room, were roused by his cries and saw the accused running
away. PW1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing was elicited to
discredit his testimony.
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
9. The contention that PW1 could not have identified the assailant
in the dark is unsustainable, for four reasons. First, the appellant was no
stranger to PW1; they had been friends for several years, and had spent
the evening of 27.11.2006 together. Second, PW1 was fully awake when
he was attacked. Third, the assailant came shouting invectives, so he
was identified by his voice as well as by sight. Fourth, the assailant
was at close quarters, standing over PW1 with his foot on his chest.
Nothing in the cross-examination suggests any mistake in identity. The
appellant was identified not only by PW1 but also by his mother and
sister, who saw him fleeing the spot. The identification therefore rests
on the evidence of three witnesses and is free from doubt.
10. The identity of the appellant is further confirmed by the
recoveries. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused
(Ex.P11), the severed private part and the knife used in the offence
were recovered under the seizure memorandums, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6,
and marked as M.O.6 and M.O.3. The place where the severed part and
the weapon lay concealed was known only to the person who took
them away, and the appellant led the police to it. This is a strong
incriminating circumstance, and it corroborates the direct evidence of
PW1 and the other two witnesses.
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
11. The suggestion that PW1 had illicit intimacy with several
women, and that some aggrieved person must have committed the
offence, is bare speculation. The defence examined no witness and
exhibited no document to substantiate it. In any event, the theory
cannot explain why the appellant was named by three witnesses
immediately after the occurrence, why a quarrel between PW1 and the
appellant two days earlier preceded the attack, or how the severed part
and the knife came to be recovered at the appellant's instance. These
circumstances rule out a case of false implication.
12. The contention regarding the door misconceives the offence
under Section 452 of IPC. That offence is committed when a person
commits house-trespass after making preparation for causing hurt,
assault or wrongful restraint. The breaking open of a door is not an
ingredient of it. The question is whether the appellant entered the
dwelling house of PW1 without permission and with a criminal
purpose, not how he gained entry. The evidence of PW1 shows that the
appellant entered his house at midnight, without invitation, shouting
invectives and armed with a knife, and that he used the knife on PW1.
These facts establish house-trespass after preparation for causing hurt.
The conviction under Section 452 of IPC is therefore confirmed.
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
13. This Court accordingly finds no ground to interfere with the
finding of the Trial Court that the appellant committed the occurrence.
(ii) Section 307 or Section 326 of IPC
14. Section 307 of IPC requires an act done with the intention or
knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if death had been caused
the offender would have been guilty of murder. The intention is to be
gathered from all the circumstances, including the motive, the weapon
used, the part of the body targeted and the manner of the assault. It is
not necessary that the injury actually caused should have resulted in
death, or that it should be one sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. That the victim survived because he received
timely treatment is therefore no answer to the charge. Section 326 of
IPC, on the other hand, applies where grievous hurt is caused with a
dangerous weapon but without the intention or knowledge that Section
307 of IPC requires.
15. Tested against these principles, the evidence establishes the
requisite intention and knowledge. The conclusion rests on the
following circumstances. (a) The appellant had a clear motive, since
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
PW1 had abused him, his mother and his sister two days earlier. (b) The
attack was premeditated. The appellant had ample time to reflect after
the quarrel, spent the evening of 27.11.2006 with PW1 as if nothing had
happened, and returned at midnight with a knife in his hand to a house
where PW1 lay asleep. (c) He first pinned PW1 down by stamping on
his chest and then cut off his private part, which shows a deliberate
design and not a sudden or uncontrolled act. (d) He carried away the
severed part, which again shows a calculated act. (e) PW8, the doctor,
deposed clearly that the wound, if left untreated, was sufficient to cause
the death of PW1. The appellant must have known that severing the
private part of a human being would, in the natural course, endanger his
life.
16. These circumstances, taken together, establish an intention to
kill, or at the very least the knowledge that the act was so imminently
dangerous that it would in all probability cause death. The appellant's
reliance on Section 326 of IPC therefore fails. Since the evidence
discloses every ingredient of the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the
Trial Court did not err in framing the charge under that Section or in
convicting the appellant under it. This Court accordingly declines to
alter the conviction from Section 307 of IPC to Section 326 of IPC.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
(iii) Sentence
17. The offence is grave and premeditated, and the Trial Court
was in fact lenient in imposing seven years of imprisonment for the
major offence under Section 307 of IPC. At the same time, nothing in
the judgment of the Trial Court shows that the appellant had any
previous bad antecedents, and he was aged about 28 years at the time
of the offence. Having regard to his age, his clean record and the
circumstances in which the offence was committed, this Court is
inclined to reduce the sentence under Section 307 of IPC from seven
years of Simple Imprisonment to five years of Simple Imprisonment.
This reduction still reflects the gravity of the offence.
Result
18. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 452 and 307 of
IPC is confirmed. The sentence under Section 307 of IPC is reduced
from seven years to five years of Simple Imprisonment. The sentence
and the fine imposed for the other offence, and the fine imposed
under Section 307 of IPC, are maintained. The substantive sentences of
imprisonment shall run concurrently, and the period of incarceration
already undergone by the appellant shall be set off.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
19. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond executed by him is
cancelled, and he shall surrender immediately before the Trial Court to
undergo the remaining period of the sentence. Apart from the fine, the
appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of Crime
No.306 of 2006 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai
Police Station, Kanniyakumari District, before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Kuzhithurai. That amount shall be paid to the victim
as compensation.
20. With the above modification in the sentence, this Criminal
Appeal is disposed of.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Nithiraivillai Police Station,
Kanniyakumari 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
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 131 of 2019
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.131 of 2019
02-11-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:25:40 am )