SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No. 191 of 1995 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Thirukazhukkundram, Chenglepet District. He was tried along with two others for offences punishable under Sections 443, 448, 323 and 326. IPC. The learned Magistrate, on the evidence adduced acquitted A-1 and A-3, but convicted the petitioner under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that at 3.30 a.m. on 19-6-1994, the petitioner accompanied by A-l and A-3 in the case went to the house of P.W. 1 and called out P.W.1 and when P.W.1 came out and questioned them, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with her and with an iron ring which he had in his hand, fisted P.W.1 on her mouth. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 2 and 3. The children of P.W. 1 . P.W. 1 was taken to the police station and a complaint. Ex. P-1, was given to P.W. 8, the Head Constable. P.W. 1 was examined by P.W.6 the doctor attached to Government Hospital. Mathuranthakam. P.W. 1 was admitted as an in-patient and thereafter, she was treated by P.W.7, the dentist, who has found dislocation of two teeth. After the treatment, P.W.I was discharged on 22-6-1994. The complaint, Ex.P-1, which was given on 19-6-1994, was later registered as a crime by P.W.8 in Crime No. 300 of 1994 for offences under Sections 448, 323 and 324, IPC on 15-7-1994. After investigation, the final report was filed against the accused.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the first information statement in this case cannot be the real first information statement and there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint. Though, according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place, on 19-6-1994, the first information statement was registered as a crime only on 15-7-1994, i.e. nearly a month after the incident. It is his further contention that the statement given by P.W. 1 at the earliest opportunity when she was produced before the doctor is different from the statement which is now given in the Court. Per contra, I heard Mr. S. Anbalagan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the respondent-State on the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner. I also perused the materials including the original records.