THULASIDAS AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent registered the case in Crime No.212 of 2005 against Veludas, Thulasidas and Krishnadoss for the offences under Ss. 452, 324, 326 and 307 of I.P.C. The defacto complainant is P.W.1 Udhayabanu. The respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil and the same was committed to the Sessions Court and made over to the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. The first accused Veludas had absconded. Therefore, the case was split up against the revision petitioners herein and taken up as S.C.No.50 of 2008. The charges were framed against the first petitioner for the offences under Ss. 452, 324 and 326 of I.P.C. and the charges were framed against the second petitioner for the offences under Ss. 452 and 326 of I.P.C. The petitioners denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.15) and also marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. M.O.1 to M.O.12 were also marked. On the side of the accused, no one was examined. Ex.D.1 Wound Certificate of the first petitioner Thulasidas was marked. The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record convicted the petitioners herein for the offences with which they were charged. The trial Court sentenced the petitioners as follows:-

(3.) Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel primarily contended that the first petitioner had suffered a grievous injury on his head and that a counter First Information Report was lodged in Crime No.213 of 2005 on the file of the respondent and that the said case was investigated. But then, it ended in acquittal in S.C.No.116 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Nagercoil. The learned counsel drew my attention to PSO 588-A and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) Sup SCC 145(Nathi Lal V. State of Uttar Pradesh). He pointed out that the investigation officer after conducting the investigation ought to have followed the procedure set out in PSO 588-A. P.S.O.588A reads as follows:-