Failure To Produce Seized Weapons Fatal To Section 148 IPC Conviction: Madras HC

Exposing glaring lapses in police investigation, the Madras High Court ruled that failure to produce alleged weapons of offense as material objects before the court and lack of medical records severely undermines the prosecution's case in violent group attack allegations. The court held that without proving the use of deadly weapons or producing objective evidence of property loss, convictions for rioting with deadly weapons and statutory property damage cannot stand.

In an appeal challenging the conviction of seven individuals, a single-judge bench comprising Justice M. Nirmal Kumar scrutinized the trial court's order in a case involving an alleged unlawful assembly and assault over neighbourhood animosity.

Court Observations and Directions

Summarizing the fatal defects in the prosecution's case, the court underscored that the foundational facts were inherently doubtful, given the severe contradictions in witness testimonies and missing material objects.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In this case, the 1st appellant and PW1 to PW3 are neighbours residing in the same locality, and there seems to be animosity between them prior to the incident... In the evidence of PW1 to PW3, there are vital contradictions with regard to manner in which they sustained injuries and goint to hospital for treatment at Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital and Thiruvarur Government Hospital. In this case, the Investigating Officer admitted the contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and further admitted that the damage to the plastic chairs and glass window was fixed at Rs.2,000/-, but no witness examined to confirm the same."

The Court has the following directions:

"(i)The conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not sustainable since the prosecution not established the obscene words uttered. The conviction under Section 506(ii) IPC is also unsustainable since there is no evidence for criminal intimidation. With regard to the conviction under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, there is no evidence to establish the actual damage caused to the plastic chairs and window panes. The Investigating Officer himself admitted that no material collected to substantiate the assessment of damage at Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the conviction and sentence against A1 to A7 for offence under Sections 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 are set aside.

(ii)Insofar as the conviction under Section 148 IPC against A1 to A7 is concerned, the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants armed with deadly weapons to attract offence under Section 148 IPC. The weapons, namely the iron rod and wooden log, not produced as Material Objects before the Court. Hence, the conviction under Section 148 IPC against A1 to A7 is altered to Section 147 IPC. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone.

(iii)In respect of A1, though the prosecution projected A1 assaulted PW1 using iron rod and wooden log, the weapons not produced and marked as Material Object. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish the injuries caused by the said weapons. Hence, the conviction under Section 324 IPC against A1 is altered to Section 323 IPC. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone.

(iv)Likewise, in respect of A5, admittedly, no X-ray or scan report produced by the prosecution to substantiate the injury. Hence, the conviction under Section 326 IPC against A5 is altered to Section 325 IPC. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone.

(v)Insofar as the conviction under Section 323 IPC against A2 to A4, A6 and A7 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction under Section 323 IPC. According the conviction is confirmed, but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone."

Background

The dispute stemmed from an alleged incident on September 18, 2016, where seven accused individuals allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, abused the complainant, and launched an assault using iron rods, wooden logs, and pipes due to prior neighborhood disputes. The prosecution alleged that the accused also damaged plastic chairs and window panes valued at Rs.2,000.

Following trial, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, convicted all seven accused under Sections 148, 294(b), 506(2) of the IPC, and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, along with specific assault charges under Sections 323, 324, and 326 of the IPC, handing sentences up to seven years.

Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants preferred an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, upon analyzing the evidence, found that key weapons like iron rods and wooden logs were never produced in court, medical reports lacked scans or X-rays, and independent witnesses failed to support the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions under Section 294(b), Section 506(2) of IPC, and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, while modifying and reducing the remaining sentences to the period already undergone.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.A.No.1238 of 2022
Case Title: Rajesh @ Rajesekar and Others v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Prabhakaran
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) assisted by Ms.Harshana.T

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 8868