ANNADURAI ALIAS DURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the first accused in the case. THE appellant was tried along with another accused for an offence punishable under sections 341, 326 and 307 r/w 34ipc. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week in respect of the offence under Section 341 IPC and in so far as the offence under Section 324 IPC , sentenced him to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and to a pay fine of rs. 200/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment. In so far as the second accused is concerned, he was convicted similarly, but sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. THE second accused did not prefer any appeal and the first accused is the appellant before this Hon'ble court.

(2.) ON 23. 10. 1997 at about 9. 30 p.m as per the evidence of P. W. 1 an unidentifiable person, referring to A-2 demanded Rs. 200/- and when it was refused, he caused an injury on the left shoulder and at that time another accused was present. P. W. 2 is the another eye witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore he has been treated hostile. P. W. 3 has been cited as a mahazar witness for recovery of the clothings of P. W. 1 under Ex. P-2, but he has been treated as hostile. P. W. 4 is the another mahazar witness for Ex. P-3-Observation Mahazar. P. W. 5 is the medical officer, who has admitted P. W. 1 in the Hospital for treatment. P. W. 1 alleged to have stated that he has sustained injury caused by an unknown person. P. W. 5 noted down an injury at the left shoulder 15x15x3 cms alleged to have been caused on the same day at 11. 30 p. m. P. W. 1 alleged to have left the hospital without intimating the hospital authorities.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on a perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1 and Ex. P-1, the complaint given by P. W. 1, the identity of the appellant is not given. The overt act has been attributed only to the second accused and though in the cross examination, he has admitted that the appellant is known to him, nothing has been stated against him. Apart from this evidence, no other materials are available to connect the appellant with the crime.