PAVAYAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal, dated 29.05.2009, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.II), Gobichettipalayam, whereby A1 and A2 were acquitted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 01.07.2008, in C.C.No.259/2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows:

(3.) REFUTING the same, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4/accused 1 to 3 submitted that two days delay in sending the complaint would clearly prove that has been concocted later. That factum has been clearly considered by the first appellate Court. He further submitted that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are eye witnesses and the medical evidence. Injuries sustained by P.W.1/the petitioner is not correlated with the manner in which she has deposed. So that aspect has been clearly considered by the first appellate Court in paragraphs-10 to 12 of its judgment. Hence the acquittal judgment passed by the first appellate Court does not warrant any interference and therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.