The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for trespassing into his friend’s house at midnight and severing his private part with a knife. However, the Court reduced his sentence for the offence under Section 307 IPC from seven years to five years of simple imprisonment.
Justice D. Lingeswaran passed the order while dismissing the criminal appeal challenging his conviction by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, in 2018.
According to the prosecution, the appellant and the victim were friends. On November 25, 2006, they had a quarrel during which the victim allegedly abused the appellant and his family members. Two days later, after consuming liquor together, they returned to their respective homes. At around midnight, the appellant entered the victim’s house while he was asleep, stamped on his chest and severed his private part using a knife before fleeing with it. The victim was subsequently taken to hospital.
The appellant challenged his conviction on several grounds, arguing that there was no evidence of forced entry into the house, the incident took place in darkness and the victim could not have identified him. He also claimed that the victim’s alleged relationships with several women could have led someone else to commit the offence.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that the victim was an injured eyewitness who knew the appellant for several years. The Court noted that the victim’s mother and sister had also identified the appellant fleeing the scene. The recovery of the severed part and the knife at the appellant’s instance further corroborated the prosecution’s case.
The Court also rejected the argument that the offence should be reduced from Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) to Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means).
It observed that the appellant had a clear motive, the attack was premeditated and he had deliberately targeted the victim while he was asleep. The Court further noted that the doctor had testified that the injury, if left untreated, was sufficient to cause the victim’s death.
Holding that the circumstances established the requisite intention or knowledge to attract Section 307 IPC, the Court declined to alter the conviction.
On the question of sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had no previous criminal antecedents and was around 28 years old at the time of the offence. Considering his age and clean record, it reduced the sentence under Section 307 IPC from seven years to five years of simple imprisonment. The Court also cancelled the appellant’s bail bond and directed him to surrender before the trial court immediately to undergo the remaining sentence. Further, it directed that the ₹50,000 deposited by him be paid to the victim as compensation.
