MURUGESAN Vs. SANKAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the victim in the case in SC No. 22 of 2013 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai. The respondents 1 to 3 are the accused. The first respondent stood charged for offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. The 2nd respondent stood charged for offences under Section 323 and 307 IPC and the third respondent stood charged for offences under Section 323 IPC. The 4th respondent filed the final report. The trial Court by judgment dated 30.10.2014 acquitted the respondents 1 to 3. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and I have also perused the materials available on record.

(2.) At the outset, this Court has raised a doubt regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court by inviting the learned counsel to address on the said issue.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the major offence said to have been committed by the accused is under Section 307 IPC, an appeal shall normally lie only to this Court against acquittal. But the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant does not persuade me for the following reasons: