BALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners / accused 1 and 2 have preferred the revision, aggrieved against the dismissal of the appeal in C.A.No.4 of 1997 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul in S.C.No.108 of 1995, wherein the 1st accused under Sec.307, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 and the 2nd accused under Sec.307 read with 109, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 were found guilty and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 11.9.1992 at about 9.00 a.m. there was wordy alteration relating to the petitioners and P.W.I Gopal relating to the cutting offence. On 12.9.1992 when witness Mohan was proceeding to the shop, he was threatened by the petitioners. On the morning of 13.9.1992 at about 00.30 hours when prosecution witnesses Gopal (P.W.I) Mohan (P.W.10) and their father were sleeping in the farm shed, the 1st accused armed with aruval accompanied with the 2nd accused came there and at the instigation of the 2nd accused, the 1st accused cut witness Mohan with Aruval on his left and right shoulder and also on the neck. P.W.1 gave a complaint under Ex.P-1. Ex.P-7 is the printed first information report. P.W.11 investigated the case and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that at one point of time it is stated that P.W. 1 and his father were sleeping in one cot, but subsequently stated that only one person was lying in the cot and another person was lying in the ground. It is only a minor contradiction and this cannot be made use of to disbelieved the prosecution case. However, it is manifestly clear that P.Ws.l, 10 and their father were present at the relevant point of time. Immediately, after the incident, P.W. 10 was taken to the nearby hospital and subsequently for further management, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at Madurai. THE complaint Ex.P-1 was recorded from P.W.1 since P.W.10 was not in a position to give any statement. Ex.P-1 was recorded at about 9.00 a.m. on the next day and the case was registered at about 10.30 a.m. on the same date. It is further stated that Ex.P-1 reached the court only on the next day at about 3.50 p.m. Because of this, the learned counsel pointed out that there is inordinate delay not only in giving the complaint but there is inordinate delay also in reaching the court and there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of the prosecution.