SANTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.115 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankari and the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/= each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, convicted the first accused under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/= in default to undergo 4 months simple imprisonment, convicted A2 under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, convicted the first accused under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, convicted the second accused for offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/= in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the sentences were to run concurrently. In the appeal preferred by them before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.NO.115 of 2005, the convictions were confirmed, but, the sentences were modified to the extent of six months rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5000/= in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine amount, Rs.4000/= was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence, the revision case has been preferred.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution has not placed all materials before the court and though the second accused was also injured, no explanation has been given by the prosecution. None of the witnesses has explained the injuries on the second accused. The investigating officer has also failed to place the materials with regard to the complaint given by the second accused. As such, the origin of the occurrence is not established by the prosecution.