Vennila v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :17.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.MP(MD) No.5989 of 2026 in Vennila ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.481 of 2012.

... Respondent Prayer :- This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.86 of 2020, dated 04.03.2026, on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram in SC No.86 of 2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abdul Kalam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/10

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in SC No.86 of 2020, on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram. She was tried for the offence under Section 307 IPC that this petitioner, with an enmity as against the victim/PW 2, poured the toilet cleaning liquid on the face of the victim, thereby, caused blindness to the victim. During the trial, the prosecution has established the case through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as eyewitnesses and also by examining the doctor/PW5, who treated the victim/PW 2. In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 04.03.2026 found this petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced her to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and a default sentence of one year simple imprisonment was also imposed on her. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.341 of 2026 and the same is admitted by this Court today. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has 2/10

also moved this application to suspend the sentence imposed on her by the trial Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the victim/PW 2 had an illegal intimacy with the husband of the petitioner /accused. Therefore, there was a quarrel between the accused and PW 2. Due to that motive, the victim has created a story along with PW 1 and PW 3 by projecting the injuries suffered by her in an accident, were caused because of this petitioner has poured toilet cleaning liquid on the face of the victim/PW 2. The learned counsel, by referring to the evidence of PWs1 to 3 states that PW 1 was working in Pharmacy and it was 3 kms away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence was at about 11.am., and at that time, she was in Pharmacy, however, she has been falsely projected that she has witnessed the incident along with PW 3. According to him, PW 3 is a close relative of PW 2 and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon.

3/10

2.1.The learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case is that the victim /PW 2 was staying near the accused's house and she has closely moved with the accused and her husband. PW 2's husband was working in abroad and she was staying alone nearby the accused's house as such, she has developed intimacy with the accused's husband. On that motive, the accused has quarrelled with the victim twice. After some time, PW 2 has vacated the house and stayed in her own house, which is few houses away from the accused's house. On the date of occurrence, PW 2 has gone to the accused house under the guise of visiting PW 3, who was suffering with certain ailments.

Though the prosecution has projected that PW 3 was suffering with certain ailments and PW 2 has gone to the place of occurrence to visit PW 3, it has not been substantiated by any material. According to the learned counsel, though this victim was owning a house nearby the place of occurrence, she stayed in a rented house adjacent to the accused house and developed intimacy with her husband. Therefore, on frustration, the accused is said to have committed the offence.

2.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's husband died on 26.02.2026 and this petitioner is having two female children, who are studying 10th standard and 9th standard. According to him, there is no one to take care of them. Moreover, 10th standard examination is now going on. Therefore, he prays that this petitioner be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent has strongly opposed for grant of suspension of sentence to this petitioner as the victim has suffered grievous injuries and she has lost both her eyes. According to him, PW 1 to PW 3 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has also established the case before the trial Court beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted this petitioner. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, the learned Government Advocate submits that 5/10

this petitioner is not entitled for suspension of sentence. 4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

5.As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and PW 2 were neighbours and the petitioner had a quarrel with PW 2 on the previous occasion that PW 2 had illegal intimacy with her husband. Admittedly, the victim's husband was working in abroad. The victim was staying alone in a rented house nearby the accused's house. PW 2, in her statement has stated that her mother was also staying nearby the place of occurrence, however, PW 2 was staying in the rented house, nearby the accused's house. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the victim twice on previous occasions on the alleged illegal intimacy. Even then, the victim has arranged a house for PW3/her relative in the upstairs of the accused's house and she often visited PW 3. On the date of occurrence, PW 2 had visited the house of PW 3, wherein, the occurrence had taken place due to a sudden quarrel. 6/10

6. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be appreciated only during the final hearing of the criminal appeal. However, the appeal could not be taken up immediately for want of time.

7. Considering the available materials, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is having two female children and one of them is appearing in 10th standard Board examinations and also considering that the petitioner's husband died recently and she has to take of her children, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- 7/10

i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.

ii. The petitioner shall report before the trial Court on the first working day of every English Calender month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

iii.If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, it is open to the respondent police to file an application to cancel the bail granted to her.

17.03.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No vrn Note: Issue order copy on 18.03.2026.

8/10

To 1.The Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram 2.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Madurai.

9/10

B.PUGALENDHI, J., vrn Order made in Crl.MP(MD) No.5989 of 2026 in 17.03.2026 10/10