SOMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by six accused, who stand convicted and sentenced. Originally, there were ten accused. Accused 5, 7, 8 and 9 have been acquitted and accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are the petitioners herein. The accused have been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below as follows :

(2.) THE ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in this case there was a counter-complaint, and though the counter complaint was marked by the prosecution as Ex. P8and though the inquiry sustained by accused 1 was referred to in Ex. P2 and also spoken to in his examination by the Doctor, P. W. 12, the Investigating Officer has not followed scrupulously the instructions contained in the Madras Police Standing orders (588-A) inasmuch as he has not at all investigated into the case put forth in Ex. P8 by accused 1 and has also not sent any report to the complainant that, he has referred the case as a mistake of law and hence the abovesai d conviction should be set aside.

(3.) THE second point which needs reconsideration is that the order enjoins the investigating officer to charge the case, where the accused were the aggressors. Here also the aggression may be of various kinds. THE transaction may start by wordly quarrel, then come some minor acts of violence, then stronger acts of violence without any weapon, then weapons of more or less dangerous nature come into play. All occurrences are not of the same type and the sequence of events vary considerably. So at what stage the real aggression started is some times difficult to determine.