The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 323 I.P.C. and the consideration of the appellant's employment in modifying the sentence.

1. This criminal appeal has been arising out of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (Fast Track Court No.3) on 13.03.2003 in S.C. No. 40 of 2003 convicting the first accused under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him for three years rigorous imprisonment and acquitting the second accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The first accused is husband of P.W.1 Dhanalakshmi. She is working as a teacher at Government Higher Secondary School, Vellalur. The marriage between the first accused and P.W.1 had taken place on 16.02.1979, and out of lawful wedlock, they are blessed with two children. The first accused had illicit intimacy with the second accused. So, P.W.1 came out of the matrimonial home. Therefore, P.W.1 has given a complaint and the first accused was convicted. She also gave a complaint against accused under Section 494 I.P.C. Since she wanted to get address of the second accused, she made a search and enquiry. On 15.02.1999, at 1.00 p.m., on information she had gone to Narasimmanaikenpalayam, Balaji Nagar. At that time, A1 and A2 along with a female child were found in their house. On seeing P.W.1, the first accused came out of his house and assaulted P.W.1 in both her shoulders, right ear with thorny pole. Then, he assaulted her with an iron rod on her head and her right palm and kicked her with boots because of which she sustained grievous injury and also loss of teeth. Then, she was admitted in the hospital. P.W.1 was treated by P.W.9 Dr.Paramasivam and he gave Ex.P4 Accident Register in which the following injuries were noticed:

"Alleged to have been assaulted by her husband with big sticks 1.00 p.m. at Narasimmanaiken palayam (1) Abrasion Right Cheek, Chin, Nose, Right knee, Left Knee, (2) Laceration Right Palm 3cm. (3) Tenderness Left Sholder. (4) Complaint of Back pain with Chest pain. Treatment given. Admitted in Tr. Ward. Soft Tissues injury, simple injury."

When she was at hospital, the complaint has been received by P.W.10 Chenniappan, Head Constable and he registered a case in Crime No. 57 of 1999 under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P5 F.I.R. P.W.2 Madusudhanan is son of P.W.1. and P.W.3 Selvaraj is an eye witness. Then, P.W.11 Singaravelan, Inspector of Police had taken up the matter for investigation and gone to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.7 Marisamy and P.W.8 Mariappan and he also drew Ex.P6 rough sketch. In the place of occurrence, he seized M.O.1 thorny pole, M.O.4 Blood stained sand, M.O.5 ordinary stone, M.O.6 broken teeth, M.O.7 broken glass bangles in the presence of P.W.8 who turned hostile. P.W.11 has examined the other witnesses and recorded his statement. P.W.12 Shanmugaiah, Inspector of Police has taken up the matter for investigation. He has examined the doctor and obtained a wound certificate. He sent M.O.2 Jacket, M.O.3 blood stained saree of P.W.1 for chemical examination through the requisition given by concerned Judicial Magistrate and it was received as Ex.P8 Chemical Analysis Report. He concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C.

3. After completing formalities, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the first accused under Section 307 I.P.C. and the second accused under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C. On examination, P.W.1 to P.W.12, Exs. P1 to P8 and M.O.1 to M.O.7, A1 and A2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. basing on the incriminating evidence against them and they denied the same. The Trial Court acquitted the second accused under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C. and also acquitted the first accused under Section 307 I.P.C., but however, convicting the first accused under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him for six months rigorous imprisonment.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that ther