SUGUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Accused has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 3/10/2012 in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2012 in S.C.No.72 of 2012 passed by the Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

(2.) THE Learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, while passing the order in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2012 in S.C.No.72 of 2012 on 3/10/2012 has among other things observed that ... "But if we look at the complaint given by the Defacto Complainant in the back ground of the wound certificate, there is material available to presume that there was an intention to kill the Defacto Complainant, so as to live peacefully and in furtherance, he has also wrongfully restrained in order to attack and due to the attack, the complainant sustained injury" and therefore, has opined that there are materials available before this Court to presume against the accused that he has committed an offence punishable under Sections 307 and 341 IPC and resultantly, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him from the main Sessions Case.

(3.) YET another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Dr.Vanitha (List of Witness No.8), who treated the Defacto Complainant has not rendered any finding as regards the nature of injury sustained by him in view of the fact that he has absconded from the Hospital and further-more, the injury mentioned in the complaint, does not corroborate with the available medical evidence.