The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the injured witness's testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to convict the appellant for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon.

1. The appellant herein was charged for offence under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and tried by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (TADA) Chennai in S.C.No.196 of 2011. The trial Court, found him guilty for offence under Section 326 I.P.C., convicted him to undergo sentence for a period of 24 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to under rigorous imprisonment for 100 days.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.07.2010, at about 18.10 hours, due to quarrel while playing cricket in the Teachers College play ground at Saidapet, Chennai, the accused restrained wrongfully Ranganathan (P.W.2) and assaulted him with cricket bat on his head and he threatened to kill him. Ranganathan was taken to Saidapet Government Hospital, Chennai and later, referred to Government General Hospital, Chennai. He was under treatment for the head injury and the lacerated wound on the upper limb. Based on the complaint given by the father of Ranganathan (P.W.1), a case was registered and investigated. The accused was arrested on 26.07.2010. The cricket bat used by the accused to attack Ranganathan (P.W.2) was recovered.

3. The Doctor who has treated Ranganathan issued wound certificate stating the injury sustained by Ranganathan is a grievous injury. From the statements of the witnesses, there were prima facie material to charge the accused for an offence of attempt to murder of Ranganathan (P.W.2) for using the cricket bat.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses; marked 9 exhibits (Exs.P.1 to 9) and one material object (M.O.1). The victim Ranganathan was examined as P.W.2. The father of Ranganathan who gave complaint was examined as P.W.1. P.W.3 – A.Sadham, P.W.4 – P.Chittibabu were friends of Ranganathan (P.W.2). They were in the play ground during incident and after the incident, they took Ranganathan (P.W.2) to the hospital. P.Ws.6 & 8 are witnesses to the mahazar for the recovery for cricket bat - M.O.1.

5. P.W. 9 - Dr.Anoopkumarsingh was the first person who saw the injured in the hospital at Saidapet. He has recorded the Accident register and referred Ranganathan (P.W.2) to Government General hospital, Chennai for further treatment. At Government General Hospital, P.W.10 - Dr.Suresh Babu had treated the injured. Through CT scan, he found that right and left parietal bones fractured. He has opined that the injuries found on P.W.2 are grievous in nature.

6. The trial Court, on cumulative assessment of these evidence and the medical opinion had held the accused guilty not for attempt to murder but for causing hurt with dangerous weapon. It also held that the prosecution has not proved the other charges. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused.

7. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant would submit that the trial Court ought to have convicted the appellant having found that the case of the prosecution not proved for offences under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The place of occurrence not been proved by the prosecution through its witnesses. The injured witness - P.W.2 had deposed that the incident took place at the bus stand opposite to Kalainger arch. P.Ws.3, 4, & 7 had deposed that the occurrence took place in the Teachers College play ground. The complaint and the consequent F.I.R., is not the first information received by the respondent police. The first information has been suppressed. The complaint was taken from P.W.1 who was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Though the occurrence took place on 27.05.2010, the F.I.R., was registered with a delay after a day of occurrence. The witnesses were examined only after 14 days from the occurrence. No explanation has been given by the prosecution for inordinate delay in commencing the investigation. The shirt of P.W.2 was not seized by the Investigating Officer. But the prosecution has stated that P.W.2 sustained injury and his shirt got stained. The evidence of P.W.4 t