ELI ALIAS GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Case against the judgment dated 2.3.2009 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry at Karaikal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused by judgment dated 23.1.2008 in C.C.No.219 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal.

(2.) THE respondent-complainant filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused stating that on 23.9.2004 at about 8 am, near Sea Shore, Karukkalacherry, Neravy, the accused assaulted the de-facto complainant Swaminathan with a blue metal stone on his left cheek and hand and also assaulted Swaminathan's wife Anjammal and caught hold of her hair and pushed her down with an intention to outrage her modesty and thereby caused simple injuries to them due to wordy quarrel. THE incident was witnessed by P.W.1 Ravi and P.W.2 Mariappan. Swaminathan went to the Police Station and gave a complaint in Ex.P-5 and the complaint has been received by P.W.4 Head Constable who registered a cases in Crime No.131 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC and prepared Ex.P-4 FIR. He inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and prepared Ex.P-1 observation mahazar and seized M.O.1 under Ex.P-2 seizure mahazar. He sent Swaminathan to P.W.3 Dr.M.Balaji Rao who examined him and gave Ex.P-3 wound certificate and P.W.5 Dr.M.Danasegaran examined the wife of Swaminathan and issued Ex.P-6 wound certificate. P.W.6 Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/complainant, stated that it is true that the complainant was not examined, but steps have been taken for summoning the witnesses and even bailable warrant has also been issued, but they are unable to produce Witness No.1 Swaminathan and Witness No.4 Anjammal. LEARNED Government Advocate further submitted that P.W.1 Ravi and P.W.2 Mariappan, even though they are the attestors of the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar, they are also the eye-witnesses and their evidence is corroborate with each other to prove the occurrence and guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 354 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. The injuries have been deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and that is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 Doctors in Exs.P-3 and P-6 wound certificates. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. To substantiate his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (6) SCC 81 (Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar) and submitted that non-examination of the complainant is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.