PERIYASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District in Crl.A.No.106 of 2018 on 19/1/2019, in confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District in C.C.No.61 of 2011 on 6/8/2018.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 22/12/2010. at about 07.30 a.m., the defacto complainant Kangaraj went to his field and saw that branches of his neem trees were cut and the same was asked to one Periyasamy for that he stated that we only cut the trees and do what you can and abused him in filthy language and also assaulted with neem stick. Thereby, P.W.1 Kangaraj sustained injuries in hand and his left hand little finger was got fractured. The second petitioner/A2 also abused in filthy language and also assaulted with neem stick on his left shoulder, head and caused simple injuries. Further the petitioners/A1 and A2 caused criminal intimidation and thereby, the defacto complainant gave compliant as against the petitioners/A1 and A2 before the respondent police and the police registered FIR in Crime No.294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and thereafter, the Investigation Officer, PW.8 investigated the case and examined witnesses and collected documents and thereafter, filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, for the offence under Ss. 294(b), 325, 506(i) of IPC as against the first petitioner/A1 and for the offence under Ss. 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC as against the second petitioner/A2 and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Ss. 294(b), 325, 506(i) of IPC against the first petitioner/A1 and for the offence under Ss. 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC against the second petitioner/A2 and furnished copies under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charges were framed as against the first petitioner/A1 under Ss. 294(b), 325, 506(i) of IPC and as against the second petitioner/A2 under Ss. 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused and they denied the charges.

(3.) The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P. 7 and on the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Sec. 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution evidences. The accused denied the evidences. During pending, trial charges under Sec. 324 of IPC was also framed against the accused and read over the charges and explained to the accused and they denied the charges.