The Appellant/Defacto Complainant (P.W.1) has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on 06.03.2015, at paragraph No.10, had, inter alia, observed that '... when no trust can be placed on the Prosecution evidence and when Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the Court cannot fix criminal liability on the Accused' and resultantly, found the Accused (R1 and R2/A1 and A2) not guilty in respect of the offences under Section 294(b), 324 I.P.C. and acquitted them of all the charges under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

3. Challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 06.03.2015 in C.C.No.18 of 2014 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner/Appellant/ Defacto Complainant/P.W.1 has preferred the present Appeal (as na aggrieved person) mainly contending that the trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 which support the case of prosecution to the effect that the Accused abused the Defacto Complainant in obscene words, assaulted and caused injuries to him with stones.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court had not taken into account Ex.P.2-Wound Certificate which unerringly points out as regards the injury sustained by P.W.1.

5. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the trial Court had failed to consider the evidence of P.W.4 that he took the injured P.W.1 to the hospital but the evidence of P.W.4 was discarded stating that the persons at the scene of occurrence was a doubtful one.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to project an argument that just because P.W.3 in his evidence had failed to depose about the presence of P.W.4 at the scene of occurrence, it could not be said that the happening of an occurrence was a doubtful one.

7. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 that the trial Court in the main case in C.C.No.18 of 2014 had examined the witnesses on the side of prosecution viz., P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record had ultimately found the Respondents 2 and 3 (A1 and A2) not guilty in respect of the offence under Section 294(b), 323 I.P.C. and the same is free from legal infirmities.

8. At this juncture, this Court relevantly points out that it is the case of the 1st Respondent/Prosecution (before the trial Court) that on 07.01.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. when the Defacto Complainant/ Appellant (P.W.1-Palanivel) was grazing his cattle in the land of P.W.4 (Madheswaran) and ploughing his field with a Tractor, the Accused viz., Respondents 2 and 3 scolded P.W.1 in inducing/vulgar language/ words and that the Respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 beat him with stone on his back and the 2nd Respondent/A1 beat him with stone in his hand. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 (Palani) and P.W.6 (Meenatchi) separated the fight/quarrel and P.W.4 (Madheswaran) took the P.W.1 (Appellant/ Defacto Complainant) to the hospital and Ex.P.1 Report was given to P.W.5 (S.I. of Police) who register the Ex.P.3 - F.I.R. under Sections 294(b), 324 I.P.C. It comes to be known that P.W.5 after visiting the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P.4 - Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.5 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses, P.W.7 Selvaraj and P.W.8 (Thorani Gounder) and obtained statements from them and other witnesses. Also, P.W.5 had arrested the Respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 and subsequently send them to Judicial custody. In fact, P.W.9 (Sub Inspector of Police) took up the case for investigation and he examined P.W.2 Dr.Kalanivani who treated P.W.1 (Appellant) and obtained Ex.P.2 Wound Certificate and after completion of his investigation filed a charge s