The judgment emphasizes the importance of evaluating witness credibility, considering the nature of injuries, and applying relevant legal provisions to determine guilt in criminal cases.

1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.45 of 2008 dated 25.09.2008 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur, Perambalur District.

2. The Appellant/Accused was found guilty by the trial Court, in respect of an offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and he was imposed with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo 15 days of Simple Imprisonment.

3. In regard to an offence under Section 326 of IPC was concerned, the Appellant/Accused was found guilty by the trial Court and he was imposed with the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of three months. In fact, the trial Court directed the payment of fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, soon after the same being remitted by the Appellant/Accused, to the victim, namely, PW.1 as compensation.

4. The trial Court acquitted the Appellant/Accused in respect of an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.

5. The case of the Prosecution is that PW.1 – Balakrishnan was working under the Appellant/Accused, namely, his son-in-law and later because of the ill feeling, he remained silent and ten days before the occurrence, PW.1 informed the Witness No.6 Dharmalingam (PW.4) that for the work turned out by him, he demanded money for which the Appellant/Accused informed that money could not be paid and that the Appellant/Accused informed him for the food he had taken, it got adjusted and refused to pay the amount. Based on this, out of prior enmity on 06.03.2007, at about 7.30 p.m. at Edayathankudi Bazaar Street, Witness No.1 (PW.1) took tea at Subramaniam Shop and came out and at that point the Appellant/Accused by uttering the following words:-

“TAMIL”

and with the sickle in his hand cut PW.1 on his right shoulder, right forearm, right chest, right hand, left forearm, front right hand, etc., frequently and caused grievous injury and hence charge sheet was laid against the Appellant/Accused under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC by Keezhapalur Inspector of Police.

6. On the basis of the accusation levelled against the Appellant/Accused, the trial Court framed necessary charges for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC and they were read over and explained to him. He denied the charges framed against him and demanded to take trial in the case.

7. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the Prosecution, witnesses PW.1 to PW.9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Further M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent/Accused, no one was examined as witness and no documents and Material Objects were marked.

8. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the trial Court had committed an error in convicting the Appellant/Accused under Section 341 and 326 of IPC. Further, it is the plea of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the trial Court should have found that the evidence of PW.1 was not trustworthy and should have held that he was a man of turn coat. Moreover, the trial Court should have found that he was not a reliable witness since his evidence was much of exaggerations, embellishments, material omissions and contradictions.

9. Advancing his arguments, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that witnesses PWs.2, 3 and 5 turned hostile in a wholesale fashion and even though PW.4 was not treated as hostile witness, yet in chief examination he deposed that the police had not enquired him.

10. In effect the stand taken on behalf of the Appellant is that the trial Court should have held that the evidence of PW.1 was neither corroborated nor trustworthy.

11. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to project an argument that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evi