(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused who was tried for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held him guilty for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Revision is filed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that, due to previous enmity, with intention to cause death of P.W.1 Natesan, the revision petitioner, indiscriminately attacked him with Koduval while he was sleeping on the pial of selvam house on 12.09.2005 night.
(3.) The motive attributed by the prosecution for the attack is that, the said Natesan (P.W.1) had illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused which has led to separation of the accused and his wife Palaniammal. Though the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable due to the motive and his ill will against the accused. The Courts below had relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 who is an interested witness and had animosity with the accused. In the complaint - Ex.P.1, it is alleged that P.W.1 was assaulted by two persons. However, the prosecution is only against the revision petitioner. There is no whisper in the investigation about the other person. Though, it is alleged that the incident took place on 12.09.2005, at about night 1 'O' clock, the complaint was given only on 13.09.2005 at about morning 7 'O' clock. The delay in lodging the complaint not been explained by the prosecution. The discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. The medical evidence, the ocular evidence of P.W.1 and his complaint Ex. P.1 does not tally with each other. The statement of the defacto complainant before Police and his deposition before the Court are contradictory to each other.