MUTHUKRISHNAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners / accused persons were found guilty under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. Each of them were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years, with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment. This judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2000, at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.2 came to the house of the P.W.1 (uncle of P.W.2) and informed that his mother Karpagam (mother of P.W.2) has been attacked by the parents of the revision petitioners and that his mother had been admitted in the hospital. Hence, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Government Hospital at about 7.00 p.m. After seeing his mother, P.W.2 returned home along with P.Ws.1 and 3 (cousin brother of P.W.2). When P.Ws.1 and 3 were standing in front of the house at about 09.45 p.m., the petitioners attacked P.W.2 with aruval and caused 3 head injuries. Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 3 took P.W.2 in an auto and admitted him in the Government Hospital. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the Head Constable. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered in Crime No.573 of 2000. Thereafter, based upon the confessional statement of the first accused, M.Os.1 to 3 is stated to have been recovered by P.W.10. Wound Certificate was obtained and thereafter, the investigation was completed and charge sheet has been laid, as against these three accused persons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the conviction and sentence is based upon the perverse finding based on no evidence and therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside. The main objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the basic document, ie., the Accident Register copy has not been filed in this case; had it been filed, it would have disclosed the earliest version of the victims before the Doctor.