RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kancheepuram, on 27.01.2003 in S.C. No.276 of 2002, acquitting the appellant/accused under Section 307 IPC and convicting the appellant/accused under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in a nut-shell is as follows:- (i) On 20.12.2000 at 7.30 p.m., when PW1-Sankar/ Complainant was doing the weaving work in PW2-Raji's Handloom Weaving Unit, at Sekupettaisaliyar Street, at that time, the appellant/accused came there and called PW1. PW2-Raji, who is the owner of Handloom Weaving Unit came out of the house. THE appellant/accused told him to call Ramesh. On being informed by PW2-Raji, PW1 came out of the house. On seeing him, the accused/appellant questioned him regarding, what did they ask in the Court and what had happened to the criminal case pending against PW1 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kancheepuram. PW1/Complainant intimated the fact that the case has been adjourned. Suddenly, the appellant/accused took the knife that was kept hidden in his right hand and assaulted PW1/Complainant on his face, left shoulder, stomach, neck, left cheek, leftside back and left the place. On witnessing the same the public made an alarm. After hearing the alarm, PW2 came out of the Handloom Weaving Unit and on seeing the injuries sustained by PW1, he enquired as to what had happened. PW1 informed him that due to previous enmity, appellant/accused had assaulted him. (ii) On being informed, Anandan/PW4 and Naghu came to the place of occurrence and taken PW1/Complainant to hospital, where, PW5-Dr.Senthil has admitted him in the hospital and noted down the following injuries sustained by him and gave Accident Register Copy-Ex.P2 :- "Injuries: 1. Incised wound left side of forehead 6 cm length. 2. Left side of (mandible) face - 8 cm length. 3. Cut neck 6 cm. 4. Left side of chest 10 cm. 5. Left axilla 5 cm. 6. Left shoulder 10 cm. 7.3 incised wounds ove left side of back 8 cm., 4 cm. and 2 cm. All sub-cut, deep." (iii) THEn, PW6-Sugumaran, Sub-Inspector of Police, after getting the information had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P1 and preferred a F.I.R.-Ex.P3.PW6 registered a case in Cr.No. 892 of 2000 under Section 324 IPC. THEn, PW6 gone to the place of occurrence and he prepared an observation mahazar and draw a plan-Ex.P4, in the presence of witnesses. PW7-Manjula, Sub-Inspector of Police, has taken up further investigation and examined the witnesses and altered the offence under Section 324 IPC into 326 IPC. PW8-Poongavanam, Inspector of Police, altered the case into Section 326 IPC and examined the witnesses and filed the chargesheet under Sections 307 IPC. (iv) THE learned Sessions Judge after following the procedure framing the charges against the appellant/accused, who pleaded not guilty. To prove the charges levelled against the accused the prosecution examined the witnesses PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P1 to P5. After the completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatory circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused flatly denied them as false. THE Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC, but convicted him under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Against that, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) HENCE, there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. There is a delay in preferring the complaint as well as in despatching the FIR to Court :- PW1/Complainant and appellant/accused already knows each other. Admittedly, there is a previous enmity between both of them. Already, there is a criminal case pending against PW1, on the basis of complaint given by appellant/accused. It is well settled that 'motive' is a double-edged weapon. Moreover, the 'motive' does not play a vital role in cases where direct eye witness is available. In such circumstances, the 'motive' is not material for consideration. The occurrence has taken place on 20.12.2000 at 7.30 pm and immediately, PW1/Complainant was admitted in the hospital at 7.45 pm. But, the complaint has been received by PW6-Sugumaran, Sub-Inspector of Police on 21.12.2000 at 15.00 hours and registered a case in Cr.No. 892 of 2000 under Section 324 IPC at 16.30 hours. So, as soon as the incident, he was admitted in hospital at 7.45 pm. In Ex.P2-Accident Register Copy, Dr.A.Sendhil has stated that PW1 is alleged to have been assaulted by a known person with knife at 7.30 pm and the injured was admitted in MS II Ward. In such circumstances, the delay in giving the complaint is not fatal and it does not affect the case of the prosecution. The delay has been properly explained.