MOHANRAJ vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.2 of 2019
CNR:{HCMD010345652019}
Mohanraj ..Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kulithalai, Karur District
2. The Inspector of Police
Kulithalai Police Station,
Karur District.
Crime No.872 of 2016 ..Respondents/Complainants
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the order dated 17.07.2018 in S.C.No.60
of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur and to
set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.J.K.Jayaselan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Defacto complainant : Mr.R.Murugappan
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed
against the appellant in S.C.No.60 of 2017 by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Karur dated 17.07.2018.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2016 at 17.30 hours,
Mr.Periyasamy (PW1) came driving a lorry to Kulithalai and parked the
vehicle in front of KPS Bakery, which belongs to the appellant. A quarrel
arose between the injured witness and the accused party, which includes
the appellant herein. Following this, the appellant herein and others
attacked the injured. Specifically, the appellant attacked PW1 with an
iron spatula, which is used in the kitchen. He aimed a blow at the head of
Periyasamy, but the witness blocked it with his right arm and fell down.
Thereafter, the appellant attacked him on his right leg, causing grievous
injury. It was further alleged that the appellant attempted to take away the
life of Periyasamy. Based upon the First Information given, a case in
Crime No.872 of 2016 came to be registered with the respondent Police.
The case was investigated, and the final report was filed against all three
accused under Sections 294(b), 342, 323, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015.
3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 15
documents, apart from marking PMO.1 and PMO.2. The defence also
exhibited one document, in Form 95.
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial
Judge acquitted A2 and A3 of all the charges. He convicted the appellant
alone under Section 326 of IPC and acquitted him of all other charges.
The Trial Judge found that the intention to kill was absent, convicted the
appellant only for an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.25,000/-, with a default clause. The fine amount was ordered to
be paid as compensation to the victim. The appellant herein deposited the
fine amount with the Trial Court and obtained suspension of sentence.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant
preferred this appeal.
5. Point for consideration:
Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the
Trial Court is sustainable?
Submissions and consideration:
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, considering the
overwhelming evidence available against the appellant, argued only for a
reduction of sentence. This Court, however, reappraised the evidence
available on record. PW1 Periyasamy was the injured eyewitness. In his
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
evidence, he categorically implicated the appellant herein and spoke
elaborately about the overt act of the appellant. As per the version of
PW1, it was the appellant herein who attacked him with an iron spatula.
He identified the spatula, which was marked as PMO.1. The blood-
stained shirt that PW1 was wearing was marked as PMO.2. He withstood
cross-examination and affirmed the role of the appellant herein. The
injured eyewitness was taken to the hospital, where he was received by
Dr.M.Mani (PW2). PW2 noted in the Accident Register (Ex.P2) the
statement of PW1 that he was attacked by three known persons. The
wound certificate was also recorded in the same Accident Register. As
per the wound certificate, PW1 sustained grievous injuries, as there were
two fractures on the right leg below the knee. The evidence of PW1 is
corroborated by the evidence of PW7. The suggestion that PW7 was an
interested person supporting PW1 was rejected by the witness, and there
was nothing on record to establish that PW7 was an interested witness.
PW12 certified, based on the case records of PW1, that the injury
sustained by him was grievous in nature, and Ex.P2 proves the same.
PW13 took the X-ray in Ex.P12 and found the fractures on the right leg
of PW1. There was nothing on record to discredit the evidence available
against the appellant herein.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
7. It is the settled position of law that the evidentiary value of the
testimony of an injured eyewitness rests on a high pedestal, and such
testimony should not be discarded unless cogent reasons exist ( State of
M.P. v. Mansingh , (2003) 10 SCC 414) . Minor discrepancies do not
corrode the credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, in a catena of decisions including Lakshman Singh v. State
of Bihar (now Jharkhand) (AIR 2021 SC 3552) , has discussed the
importance of the testimony of injured eyewitnesses in criminal cases. In
the case on hand, the evidence of the injured eyewitness was not only
cogent and clear but also well supported by the evidence of PW7. There
is nothing on record to discredit the evidence of PW1 and PW7 with
regard to the incident, the attack on PW1 and the injury sustained by
PW1 in the incident. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant
fairly confined his arguments to a reduction of sentence.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
the iron spatula (PMO No.1) used in the occurrence was flat and blunt,
without any sharp edge or pointed end, and therefore could not be
construed as a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 326 of
the Indian Penal Code. The contention merits acceptance. In Mathai v.
State of Kerala , (2005) 3 SCC 260 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
an object cannot be classified as a dangerous weapon merely on the basis
of the material of which it is made or the injury caused by its use. The
nature, size and characteristics of the object, as well as the manner in
which it was used, have to be considered in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, the weapon used by the
appellant is an iron spatula, which is admittedly flat and blunt and has
neither a sharp edge nor a pointed end. This is proved by Ex.P9, the
seizure memorandum of PMO.1, which describes the nature of the
weapon. Though the victim sustained two fractures in his right leg, the
nature of the injury, by itself, would not be sufficient to conclude that the
spatula was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 326 of
IPC. In the absence of sufficient material to establish that the spatula,
having regard to its nature and the manner of its use, answers the
description of a dangerous weapon contemplated under the said
provision, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC
cannot be sustained. However, the fractures sustained by the victim
constitute grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of IPC.
Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be altered from
Section 326 of IPC to Section 325 of IPC. The sentence of one year
simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the learned
Trial Court is maintained for the altered offence under Section 325 of
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
IPC. The point is answered accordingly.
Retribution or Reformation:
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for the benefit
of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is argued that the
appellant is a first-time offender, aged 28 years at the time of the
occurrence, with no criminal history, and has already undergone the
agony of trial and appeal for several years. The learned counsel appearing
for the victim concurred with this submission.
10. Section 11(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 explicitly
empowers an Appellate Court to exercise the powers conferred under
Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 applies to offenders of any age who are
convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. Since the altered conviction under Section 325 of IPC carries a
maximum punishment of seven years, the statutory bar does not apply,
and this Court is fully competent to grant probation.
11. In Chellammal and another v. State rep. by Inspector of
Police , (2025 INSC 540) , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that considering
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
the report of the Probation Officer is mandatory for extending the benefit
under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Therefore, this Court, by
order dated 27.10.2026, called for a report from the Probation Officer
concerned. Mr.M.Senthil, Probation Officer, Karur, submitted his report
vide Mu.V.No.39/2026 dated 02.11.2026, recommending the release of
the appellant on probation. This Court has carefully considered the report,
the family circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the appellant
herein.
12. Upon evaluating the record, this Court finds the following
mitigating factors in favour of the appellant. The prosecution has placed
no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant has any prior criminal
convictions or bad antecedents. The appellant appears to be a first-time
offender, and the probation report also confirms the same.
13. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant poses a
continuing danger to society or to the complainant, or that he has misused
his liberty while on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
14. While the offence under Section 325 of IPC is serious, the
alteration from Section 326 of IPC indicates the absence of a dangerous
weapon or of intent to cause catastrophic harm, shifting the balance
toward reformation rather than retribution. Punitive incarceration of a
first-time offender aged 28 years may risk hardening him into a habitual
criminal. In the interest of justice and reformation, this Court deems it fit
to release the appellant on probation of good conduct rather than directing
him to serve the remaining sentence.
Conclusion
15. In the result, the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is altered
and modified to a conviction under Section 325 of IPC. The sentence of
simple imprisonment for one year and the fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed by
the Trial Court are maintained for the altered offence under Section 325
of IPC. The direction that the fine amount be paid as compensation to the
victim remains unaltered. The sentence of one year of simple
imprisonment is kept suspended. The Trial Court is directed to release the
appellant on his entering into a bond, with one surety, to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year. The
appellant shall keep the peace and maintain good behaviour during the
one-year period. The appellant shall execute the bond before the Trial
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. This Criminal Appeal is allowed on the terms indicated above.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kulithalai, Karur District
2. The Inspector Of Police
Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District
Crno.872/2016
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.2 of 2019
04-11-2026
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No. 2 of 2019
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:47:35 pm )