MURUGAN Vs. BEER MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is preferred by P.W.1 Complaint against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu rendered in S.C. 16/92 acquitting the accused. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 26.3.1991 at about 10.00 P.M. at Padiannallur, No. 195d/e, 11th street, Jothi Nagar, in front of the house of deceased Narayanan the accused with common intention of committing murder of Narayanan armed themselves with formed themselves into unlawful assembly, committed criminal trespass into the house of Narayanan and that in the course of transaction the first accused hit Narayanan on the back of his head with causing the death of Narayanan and that and the second accused attacked witness Murugan with and caused injury and that accused 4 and 5 caused injuries to Adaikalam with and that the accused 6 and / caused injuries to Manickamal with and that the 3rd accused caused injuries to witness Pandian and as such the accused are guilty under Section 148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149, and 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C. On those allegations, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri. The Judicial Magistrate Ponneri took the case on file in PRC. 14/91 and after furnishing copies to the accused under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure committed the accused to take trial before the Sessions Court. The case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C. 16/92 and the first accused was charged Under Section 302 and accused 2 to 7 under Section 302 r/w. 149 and accused 4 and 5 under Section 324 accused 6 and 7 under Section 324 and the 3rd accused under Section 323. the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os 1 to 5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. The accused did not examine any witnesses nor any document was exhibited on their side. The learned Sessions Judge held that the offences have not been made out and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same P.W.1 Murugan has preferred this Revision.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner placed before this Court four main points to contend that the lower court has omitted to take note of these important points which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore it is a fit case for remand.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Revision Petitioner referred to the testimonies of these doctors and the wound certificate and the postmortem certificate to contend that the prosecution has proved that the injuries were caused in the time and manner alleged by the prosecution and these aspects have been ignored by the lower Court. It is true that the lower Court has not adverted to these aspects to see if the medical evidences supports the case of the prosecution. It is also to be pointed out that the deceased was admitted in the hospital in a conscious state. He himself had stated that he was attacked by 5 males on 26.3.1991 at about 10.15 P.M. at Jothi Nagar. These important aspects, of course, have not at all been considered by the lower Court.