The failure to take action for traffic rules violation was not fatal to the case of prosecution, and the prosecution's evidence of the assault was found reliable, leading to the confirmation of the conviction under Section 332 of I.P.C.

1. The Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.67 of 2011 dated 27.08.2012 by the II Additional District Judge, Trichy confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2011 made in C.C.No.288 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, wherein, the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The case of prosecution briefly is as follows:

(i) P.W.1 Rajkumar was working as Head Constable in Cantonment Police Station. On 16.07.2010, while he was discharging his duty at the Zonal Point, at about 11.45 hours, since there was red signal, he stopped the accused, who was coming from Aristo towards Kallukuzhi in a two wheeler, whereas, he proceeded without stopping his vehicle and since P.W.1 questioned the same to the accused as to why he did not stop the vehicle since there was red signal, the accused abused P.W.1 saying that did he know who he was (“Tamil”) fisted on his face, which leads bleeding in his nose.

Thereafter, he caught the accused and informed the same to the Traffic Inspector and gone to Cantonment Police Station along with the accused and he gave a complaint Ex.P1 and he gone to Government Hospital with medical memo for taking treatment.

(ii) On 16.07.2010, P.W.8 Manivannan, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint, Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.1814 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 353 of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.5, First Information Report and he took the investigation of the case and gone to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.4, Observation Mahazer and Ex.P.6, Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.7 Mariyakamal and P.W.6 Gunasekaran and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused, who was available in the Police Station and released him on bail and received the Beat book M.O.1 and Diary M.O.2, which were produced by P.W.1 under Form 91, Ex.P7.

(iii) On 16.07.2010, P.W.5 Dr.Geetha Sankari examined P.W.1 Rajkumar, who was alleged to be attacked by unknown person and treated him and issued Ex.P2, A.R. Copy saying that the injury sustained by him is simple in nature.

(iv) Thereafter, P.W.8, Manivannan, Sub Inspector of Police after completing his investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 332 of I.P.C.

3. The learned trial Judge, after following the procedures, framed necessary charges against the accused. Since the accused denied the same in toto and pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 7 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On completion of the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the defence.

4. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved over by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy, an appeal was preferred by the accused in C.A.No.67 of 2011 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Trichy, wherein, the conviction and sentence was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

5. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court and confirming by the first appellate Court for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the failure to take action against the accused for violation of traffic rules is fatal to the