VEERASEKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment of the District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam made in Crl.A.No.66 of 2008 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in so far as conviction under Section 326 IPC is concerned and modifying the sentence from two years to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo six months S.I.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief:-

(3.) M/S.G.Keerthana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the earliest statement that was made before the Doctor by P.W1, he has categorically stated that he was attacked by four known persons. However, while giving the complaint before the police, only the name of the petitioner was mentioned. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between the parties and therefore the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has been roped in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was a delay in registering the FIR. Even though, the incident took place at 12.45 p.m on 10.01.1999, the FIR was registered only on 11.01.1999 at about 2.30 p.m and there is no reason for such a delay since the police station is only 10 kilo metres from the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel further submitted that the X-ray which is a vital document in order to come to the conclusion whether there was fracture of bone, was not marked in this case by the prosecution. The only reason given by the prosecution in not marking X-ray is that the X-ray was destroyed by termite bite. Therefore, without the X-ray being marked, both the courts below had erroneously came to the conclusion that the injuries suffered by P.W.1 are grievous injuries. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2 is a close relative of P.W.1 and is an interested witness and none of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution were eye witnesses to the incident. The learned counsel also made a plea before this Court to modify the sentence, if in the event, this Court concurs with the findings of conviction given by both the Courts below.