PARAMASIVAM Vs. VISHNU PARTHIPAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the defacto complainant and who was examined as PW1 in C.C. No. 292 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Salem, has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2009 passed in C.C. No. 292 of 2008 whereby the second respondent/accused was acquitted from the criminal case.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as per the version of the defacto complainant/PW1 is that on 04.11.2008 at 7.00 pm, after delivering coffee power, PW1 was riding his Mini Door Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 67 A 3832. When the vehicle was nearing Gorimedu, K.K. Nagar near K.P. Saw Mill, he heard a noise on the back side of the vehicle. Therefore, PW1 stopped the vehicle and looked whether there is any one behind the vehicle, but he could not see any one. Therefore, PW1 proceeded 100 feet further. At that time, the accused persons came in a motor bike and way laid him and made PW1 to stop his vehicle. When PW1 stopped the vehicle, the accused persons assaulted him with hand and also with a knife and caused him bleeding injuries in his lip and hand. PW1 was thereafter taken to hospital by his brother, PW2. In connection with this incident, a case in Crime No. 499 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the prosecution has not properly conducted the case which led to the acquittal of the revision petitioner. Merely because the material object used in the commission of offence i.e., knife has not been produced before the trial Court, it will not be a ground for acquitting the accused. The discrepancies pointed out by the trial court in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses will not in any manner entitle the accused to get an order of acquittal from the criminal case.