S.Selvam @ Selvaraj vs The Deputy Superintendent of police
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 26.10.2026
DELIVERED ON: 12.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
CNR:{HCMD011223582019}
1. S.Selvam @ Selvaraj
2. S.Balu @ Balasubramanian
..Appellants/Accused 1 and 2
Vs
The Deputy Superintendent of police
Alangudi, Pudukkottai District.
..Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to
set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.07.2019 in
S.C.No.33 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Special
and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and acquit the appellants of the charge
against them under Section 307 of IPC.
For Appellants :Mr.K.R.Manimaran
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent :Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
rd
A2), along with their parents (the 3 accused, who has since died, and
th
the 4 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.
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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.
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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.
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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.
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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.
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
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
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.286 of 2020
12-11-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 07:08:21 pm )