SUBBU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 10.06.2010 made in SC.No.257/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem and whereby, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused Subbu was residing at Thedavoor and his wife Amudha had quarrelled with him and she left the matrimonial home and was living with her mother. On 22.11.2004 at 8.00 a.m., while P.W.1 was on her way to the field near Madhaiyan house at Ambethkar Nagar, Thedavoor, the appellant/accused came in the opposite direction feeling aggrieved that P.W.1 was the reason for the dispute between him and his wife quarrelled with her stating that she was the person responsible for his wife leaving him and by saying ",j;njhL xGpe;J ngh". assaulted P.W.1 with weed remover (fisf;bfhj;J) on the centre of the head, right and left side of the head and during the occurrence when P.W.1 attempted to ward off the assault by her right hand, she sustained fracture in the right hand and thereafter, P.W.1 was admitted in the Government Hospital, Attur and on intimation, the respondent police visited the Hospital, obtained statement from her and based on the statement, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.242 of 2004, for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Attur for the said offence. The appellant/accused was furnished the documents relied on by the prosecution under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., Since the matter was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Principal District Judge, Salem and the same was made over to the trial Court and necessary charge was framed.

(3.) The accused had denied the charge and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and also marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides marking M.O.1-Weed Remover. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence.