Delay in filing FIR, credibility of witnesses, admissibility of evidence, and severity of punishment under Section 326 IPC.

Petitioner/first accused in C.C. 15 of 1996 has preferred the revision aggrieved against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by an order dated 4-11-98.

2. The case in brief is as follows : The Inspector of Police, Ambasamudhram laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner as well as two other persons for offences u/Ss. 326, 324 and 323, IPC. On 16-6-95 at about 7-15 p.m. in Idaikal Road, Kovilkulam near the Godown belonging to one Rajalingaraja, the accused with common intention to cause hurt to witnesses, the 1st accused armed with Aruval cut one Periyasamy and caused grievous injury. The second accused with Aruval caused simple hurt to one Selvakumar and the 3rd accused beat one Natesan with stick and caused simple injury. P.W. 1 Periyasamy is the father of P.Ws. 3 and 4, P.W. 2 Selvakumar is the nephew of P.W. 1. P.Ws. 1 to 4 have lands in the village at Kovilkulam. On 16-6-95 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 1 was watering his field. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were with him. The first accused came there and diverted the water flowing to the land of P.W. 1. He requested the petitioner to wait for sometime, so that his lands could be watered as he wanted to plant saplings on the next day. Immediately the petitioner retorted and abused his community and diverted the water also. Then the petitioner left the place. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were returning to the village. While they were near Rajalingaraja's godown, P.W. 4 also came there. There was tube light burning near the godown. At that time the petitioner with Aruval ran to cut P.W. 1 and when he attempted to ward it off, the cut fell near the right eye and as such, he sustained injury. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 went to the Police Station and P.W. 1 gave a statement, which was recorded by P.W. 9 under Ex. P. 1. A case in Crime No. 25/95 was registered under Ss. 323, 324, IPC and under S. 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. Ex. P. 8 is the first information report. The injured were sent to the doctor for treatment.

3. P.W. 8 Dr. Ulagammal, examined P.W. 1 and found one grievous injury on him, for which she gave the wound certificate Ex. P. 6. He was also referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital where one doctor Andrew Jebakumar took X-ray photograph for P.W. 1 and found that there was fracture in the upper part of maxilla and for which he sent a report Ex. P. 4. M.O. 1 is the X-ray. Since Dr. Andrew Jebakumar had gone to foreign country, P.W. 7 doctor Muthukumar, tutor in Radiological department was examined. On the strength of M.O. 1 and Ex. P. 4, the doctor P.W. 8 Issued. Ex. P. 6.

4. P.W. 10 took up investigation in the case and examined P.Ws. 1 to 4. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 and also recovered blood-stained (sic) that under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 3. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined. Exs. P. 1 to P. 9 were marked and M.O. 1 was produced. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty u/S. 326, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner was also found guilty under S. 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against this, he preferred C.A. 79/98 on the file of the Sessions Court and the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under S. 326, IPC was confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and imposed a further fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The conviction under S. 7(1)(d) of P.C.R. Act was also set aside. Aggrieved against the conviction imposed under S. 326, IPC the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Court failed to note the delay in filing the first information report, which is fatal to the case. The le