P. KASILINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.310 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges against the appellant, as detailed below.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the occurrence and thus, the prosecution has not come forward with the clean hands. The learned counsel would further submit that in the very same occurrence, the accused also sustained injuries and on the complaint made by him, a case in Crime No. 305 of 2008 was registered. PW -11 has admitted that he investigated the case in Crime No. 305 of 2008 also. But, unfortunately, neither the First Information Report, nor any other document, including the medical records pertaining to the accused have been placed before this Court. Thus, according to the learned counsel, though PW -11 has investigated the case in Crime No. 305 of 2008, he has closed the same as mistake of fact. In order to substantiate the same, no materials have been placed on record. The learned counsel would further submit that the injuries sustained by the accused in the very same occurrence have also not been explained away by the prosecution. The eye -witnesses have also not stated anything about the injuries sustained by the accused and they are suppressing an important part of the occurrence. They have not come forward with the true version of the occurrence involving the attack made on the accused party also, the learned counsel contended.