MUNIAPPAN Vs. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgment dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, this criminal revision petition is focused.

(2.) A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision would run thus:(i)The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the two accused for the offences under Sections 323 IPC (3 counts) and 3(1)(x)/SC/ST P.A. Act as against A 1 and Sections 323 IPC, 506 (ii)IPC and 3(1)(x)/SC/ST P.A. Act a against A2 since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted.(i).On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 was examined and Exhibits P-1 to P-12 were marked. On the defence side, Exhibit D1 was marked and no oral evidence was adduced.(iii).Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused.(iii).Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such an order or acquittal, this revision is filed by the injured person Muniyappan viz, P.W.1 on the following grounds among others:The trial Court miserably failed to take into consideration the oral and documentary evidence as put forth on the side of the prosecution, which established the prosecution case. Merely by picking holes in the prosecution case, the lower Court acquitted the accused. The medical evidence was ignored by the lower Court. Simply because the injured witnesses are relatives and they were not in a position to precisely and concisely, describe the date of occurrence and other details, the learned Magistrate taking a draconian view of the matter, rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused.

(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law on the part of the lower Court in deciding the matter?.