The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent and cogent evidence from witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, is crucial in establishing guilt in assault cases. Additionally, the court has the discretion to consider the background of the offenders and the root cause of the occurrence in determining the sentence.

A-2 and A-4 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.321 of 2006 are the appellants. Totally there are 4 accused, namely, A-1 to A-4. Ultimately, A-3 was acquitted, however, A-1, A-2 and A-4 were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Accused Conviction Sentenc

Boorasamy (A-1) Section 323 IPC Rs.500/-, i/d 2 months S.I.

Ramu (A-2) Section 324 IPC (2 counts) 1 year R.I and fine Rs.500/-, i/d 3 months R.I for each count

Kumar (A-4) -do- -do

2. The convicted persons have preferred this appeal. Pending appeal, A-1 had passed away. The remaining accused are A-2 and A-4.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under:-

(i) PWs-3 and 4 are spouses. PWs-1 and 9 are their son and daughter. They and A-2 and A-4 belongs to Melapudhupettai village in Cuddalore District. Between both side, there is a pathway dispute. In this backdrop of the matter, on 10.7.2005, at about 8.30 p.m., near A-1's land, the occurrence took place. A-2 (Ramu) assaulted PW-1 on his head. A-4 (Kumar) also assaulted PW-1 with MO-2 knife on his left hand. When PW-3 came there, A-2 assaulted him on his right ear while A-4 (Kumar) assaulted him on his chest. PWs-4 and 9 stated to have sustained injury and PWs-5 and 6 have witnessed the occurrence.

(ii) On the same day, at about 9 a.m., at the Kurunchipadi Police Station, PW-1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P-1) with PW-10 S.I of Police. He registered this case (Ex.P-8 FIR).

(iii) PW-13 Inspector took up his investigation. He went to the scene place, prepared Ex.P-6 Observation Mahazar in the presence of PW-7 and another person. He drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. After him, PW-11 Inspector continued the investigation. On 11.7.2005 at the Bus Stand, he has arrested A-1 in the presence of PW-8 and another person and recorded his confessional statement (Ex.P-9). Based on that he had seized MOs-1 and 2 knives and MOs-3 and 4 woodenlogs under Ex.P-7 Mahazar.

(iv) In the meanwhile, at the Government Hospital, Kurunchipadi PW-2 treated PW-1 and found laceration on his head and left hand (see Ex.P-2 Wound Certificate). PW-2 also treated PW-3 and found laceration injury on his forehead, head and right ear (Ex.P-3 Wound Certificate). Finally, PW-12 investigated this case. Concluding his investigation he filed the Final Report in this case.

4. When the charges were read over to the A-2 and A-4 they have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced as already stated.

5. To substantiate the charges prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and exhibited MOs-1 to 4.

6. When A-2 and A-3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, as to the incriminating information in the prosecution evidence, they have denied the offences and they did not let in defence evidence.

7. Considering the above evidence and the submissions of both sides, the Trial Court found A-2 and A-4 guilty and sentenced them as already stated.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there is material contradiction as to the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of offences. There is material variations in the Final Report of the Investigating Officer and the prosecution evidences. The prosecution has thoroughly failed to establish the charges levelled against A-2 and A-4. In any event, the sentence imposed upon them is disproportionate to the offences alleged to have been committed by them.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is an assault case. A-2 and A-4 have assaulted the witnesses with lethal weapons. The injuries having been found on their persons have been corroborated by the medical evidence. PWs-5 and 6 are also ocular witnesses in this case. In such circumstances, the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded cannot be faulted.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the trial Court's judgment and the materials on record.

11. Question is whether prosecution had establi