The judgment establishes the principle that the non-examination of the injured, the statement made by the injured to the Doctor, and the lack of independent witnesses may not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case. Additionally, it clarifies the scope of the court's authority to award compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

1. The four appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the court and a fine of Rs.10,000/-each out of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid to the Kaligambal Temple by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chennai in S.C.No.191 of 2002 dated 15.10.2003. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come forward with the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.1999 at 12.30 a.m. one Karthik, who was the injured received a phone call from one of his friends who asked him to come near a tea stall known as "Bombay Tea Stall". Responding to the phone call the said Karthik went towards the said tea stall. P.W.1 the father of the said Karthik having suspected some foul play followed his son. When Karthik was reaching the tea stall, suddenly four persons attacked him with wooden logs in which he sustained injuries. On seeing this incident P.W.1 raised alarm which attracted the public to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, all the assailants left the injured and disappeared. Immediately, P.W.1 took the injured and got him admitted in a private hospital known as National Hospital at 1 a.m. The Doctor P.W.5 examined him and gave treatment. He issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. Ex.P5 is the Medico Legal Register. Thereafter, the injured person was discharged on 26.10.1999. To the Doctor the said Karthik had told that he was attacked by unknown persons. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred a complaint to the Esplanade Police Station. In the complaint he has mentioned the names of the appellants as the assailants. P.W.2 is a person who is also residing in the same street. P.W.2 has been examined to speak about the observation mahazar. P.W.3 has been examined to speak about the confession statement of A2 as well as the seizure mahazar. P.W.3 examined as an eye witness has turned hostile. P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. P.W.7 investigated the case followed by P.W.8. P.W.8 laid the final report. The trial court framed charges under Section 307 read with 34 IPCagainst the appellants. They denied the charges.

3. Before the trial court on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined Exs.P1 to P10 were exhibited and Mos 1 to were marked. On the side of the defence no witness was examined and no defence exhibit was marked.

4. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the court and directed all the four accused to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each out of which a sum of Rs.5,000/- each altogether a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid to the Kaligambal Temple against which the complainant has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants resisted the judgment of the trial court on the following grounds :-

1. The non-examination of the injured is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

2. The injured at the earliest point of time had told the Doctor that he was attacked by unknown persons, whereas, P.W.1 in the complaint itself has mentioned the name of the accused, who are said to be the neighbours of the injured and P.W.1.

3. The court lacks power to award compensation to a third party.

On these grounds he contended that the appeal has to be allowed.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that mere non-examination of the injured person alone will not be a ground for acquittal of the accused. Further compensation has rightly been awarded under Section 357. Hence there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and hence the appeal has to be dismissed.

7. As regards the first point agitated by the learned counsel for the accused that the injured was not examined the explanation offered by the prosecution is that since the injured is in London, he could not be