BALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2010 dated 7.4.2010 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Usilampatti, dated 05.02.2010 in C.C. No. 46 of 2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months S.I. and was imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo S.I. for the period of one month. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and there was no plausible explanation. He would further submit that except the testimony of interested witnesses, there was no independent witnesses on the said of prosecution though the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 indicated that one Chithiraiselvan and Iyyappan were present in the place of occurrence and pacified the parties.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 had been suppressed in this case and in the said circumstance, unsatisfactory explanation given for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint ought to have been viewed with suspicion and prosecution case ought to have been rejected by the Courts below. The learned counsel pointed out that there was motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Thus, the revision petitioner assailed conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below as unsustainable.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government advocate supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and contended that the prosecution has proved the offence against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no scope for interference in this revision.