N THIRUMOORTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner / A2, against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 25. 03. 2003, imposed under Section 326 IPC (2 counts) in C. A. No. 243 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, whereby the conviction imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore in C. C. No. 218 of 1997 on 17. 06. 2002 was confirmed, but the sentence alone was modified by reducing the same into 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each count, instead of one year RI and Rs. 1,000/- fine for each count.

(2.) THE petitioner herein was accused no. 2 before the trial court. As per the prosecution case, on 23. 09. 1995, at about 4 p. m, when pongiya Gounder, P. W. 1 was in his gardenland, at Kothavalayam Village , within the police limit of the respondent, the co-accused was driving his bullock cart in the common pathway. As P. W. 1 objected the same, saying that he was destroying the pathway, the first respondent got angry and started wordy quarrel with P. W. 1, then the co-accused / A1 attacked P. W. 1 and his wife with sickle and caused injuries. THE appellant / A2 also attacked P. W. 1 and his wife, present there at the scene of occurrence by a crowbar, M. O. 1, due to which, P. Ws. 1 and 2 sustained fractures, apart from other injuries. THE other accused / A3 also attacked P. W. 1 and his wife by stick. Based on the complaint, ex. P. 1 given by P. W. 1, the case was registered by the respondent police. After the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, convicted the appellant / A2, under Section 326 IPC (2 counts) and he was sentenced to undergo one year RI for each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each count with default sentence. THE co-accused were also convicted under various sections. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C. A. No. 243 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions judge, Coimbatore.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned government Advocate (crl. side) would contend that the occurrence had taken place on 23. 091995 at about 4 p. m, as per the FIR, Ex. P. 8. It is seen that the written complaint, Ex. P. 1 given by P. W. 1, Pongiya Gounder was sent to the judicial Magistrate along with the FIR without any delay, hence, it cannot be construed that the same was not given by P. W. 1 before the respondent, but by some other person.