MARIAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is preferred against the judgment of acquittal, dated 24/6/2005, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Sangagiri in C. C. No. 157 of 2002 on the file of the said court. Based on the complaint given by the revision petitioner / P. W. 1, the case was registered by the first respondent police against A1 under Sections 148, 341, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC and against A2 to A6 and A8 under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506 (ii) IPC and against A7 under Sections 147, 341, 325 and 506 (ii) IPC.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the revision petitioner / P. W. 1 and the second respondent / A1 are brothers and there was a civil dispute between the brothers with regard to partition of their family properties. As per the prosecution case, on 20/3/2002, at about 5 a. m. , respondents 2 to 8 attacked the revision petitioner / P. W. 1 at Kullampatti Bharathi Nagar, within Thevur police station limit and thereby committed the aforesaid offence, punishable under the aforesaid sections of IPC. It is seen that all the independent witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P. W. 1 and his son P. W. 6 have deposed evidence. But, as per the evidence available on record, P. W. 6 had come to the alleged scene of crime, only after the occurrence and therefore, as found by the trial court, he cannot be treated as an eye witness.

(3.) AS contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9, even the mahazar witnesses turned hostile and further, there is a delay of four days in sending the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, for which as per the finding of the trial court, there is no explanation from the prosecution.