THIRULOGACHANDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises against the Judgment of the learned First additional Sessions Judge (PCR), thanjavur in C. A. No. 29 of 2007, who by judgment dated 13. 07. 2007 confirmed the finding of conviction under Section 324 i. P. C. Before the trial Court, there was three accused persons. The first accused was acquitted of charge under Section 506 (ii) I. P. C. and the third accused of charge under Section 323 I. P. C. by the trial Court. The first accused was convicted for offence under section 324 I. P. C. while A2 was convicted for offence under Section 323 I. P. C. The trial court imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment against A2 for offence under Section 323 i. P. C. and one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/- in default three months simple imprisonment against the first accused for offence under Section 324 i. P. C. On the appeal filed by the first accused, the first appellate Court while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence of imprisonment to one of five months. The finding of the trial Court otherwise was confirmed.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(3.) URGING the innocence of the revision petitioner/a1, the learned counsel impresses upon this Court that the first appellate court fell into grave error in arriving at a finding of conviction of the revision petitioner, despite such Court taking note of the delay of three days in the First Information report reaching the Court and the interpolations made in the complaint to make out a case (1) that the accused beat P. W. 1 under the impression that he had scolded them and (2) that it was P. W. 2, who had separated them. The first appellate Court rightly appreciated the fact of P. W. 3 admitting to the accused already having given a complaint against her husband P. W. I and of there being a dispute between them, such court rightly appreciated the fact of Ex. P2 observation Mahazar not informing anything about the houses of P. Ws. 2 and 3, which should be the case if P. Ws. 2 and 3 were neighbours of P. W. 1 and also disbelieved P. W. 2 as a purely interested witness, who had subsequently been planted. While so, the lower appellate Court fell into error in convicting A1 on the reasoning that P. W. 1 an injured witness had spoken about the occurrence and the Medical Officer's evidence supported his version. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the reasoning of the lower appellate court that there was no reason for P. W. 1 to implicate A1 and his father was not a tenable one. Why a witness was implicating a particular accused is not for the accused to explain.