SETTU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises against the judgment of the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Vellore, Vellore District passed in C.A.No.66 of 2007 on 03.09.2007.

(2.) PETITIONER herein and two others stood trial for offence under Section under Section 326,323,294(b), 452 I.P.C. Prosecution case was that at about 12.30 hours on 12.09.2005, this petitioner and two other accused motivated by prior enmity trespassed into the house of P.W.1. This petitioner/A1 caused cut injury near the left wrist and grievous injury to the right wrist of P.W.1 by using a knife while the 2nd accused beat him with a wooden log on his head causing simple injury. When P.W.2 wife of P.W.1 intervened, A3 caught hold of her neck and pushed her aside, abused her in filthy language and brandishing knives, threatened death.

(3.) THIS revision would stand allowed owing to a fundamental flaw in the prosecution case. While the present prosecution case rests on Ex.P.1 the F.I.R registered pursuant to statement to the respondent police made by P.W.1, the injured, while at the Gudiyatham hospital, and three days after the occurrence to the respondent police, P.W.1 has admitted having preferred a complaint with the Melapatti police station within half an hour of the alleged occurrence wherein he had informed of no knowledge as to who was involved in the occurrence/attack upon him. THIS fact of preference of earlier complaint with the Melapatti police station is spoken to also by P.W.3. P.W.5 also speaks to having accompanied P.W.1 to the Police station after the occurrence. P.W.3 speaks to P.W.1 not having informed him of who caused injury to him. In the light of clear evidence emanating from the prosecution witnesses which informs no knowledge as to the persons involved in the occurrence wherein P.W.1 and his wife were attacked, the prosecution story brought forth through Ex.P.1 registered days after the occurrence and sought to be supported by examination of witnesses necessarily has to be disbelieved. As held in Seviand another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another 1981 SCC (Crl) 679, If there is reason to suspect that the original FIR has been suppressed, the entire prosecution case becomes suspect.