POINT OF LAW: CONVICTION UPHELD – ACCUSE did not come with the weapon, spade with a pre-plan and he picked up the weapon from the person who was working in the field, only after such quarrel. Considering the said facts and having regard to the nature of injuries, the weapon, the spade, which was collected by the accused from the witness after quarrel with PW.2 and in the absence of X-ray having not been produced

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 04.02.2013, passed in CA.No.65 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.08.2013, passed in SC.No.29, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 04.02.2013, passed in CA.No.65 of 2013, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.08.2013, passed in SC.No.29, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode.

2. The case of the Prosecution had arisen on the basis of the complaint, Ex.P1 given by PW.1, stating that on 24.07.2012 at 10.30 a.m. when the witnesses, PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6, were engaged for cutting the palmyra trees available in the lands of PW.2, the Petitioner/Accused came there in a motorcycle, MO.2 and objected to the same and quarrelled with PW.2 and that after such quarrel, the accused removed the spade MO.1 from PW.1 and attacked PW.2 on his head and left hand repeatedly, due to which, PW.2 had sustained injuries on his head and forearm. For such acts, the Petitioner/Accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.29 of 2013, by the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Erode and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the Prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.11 and also marked Exs.P1 to P10 and Mos.1 and 2.

4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the Prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined.

5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the Petitioner/Accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. On the appeal, the lower appellate court had modified the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved over the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that both the courts below have failed to consider the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 to PW.6, in its proper perspective and that the accident register copy issued by the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam was not marked and the Doctor, who treated PW.2 in the said Government Hospital, was also not examined and that the recovery of MO.1 and MO.2 pursuant to the confession statement of the accused is unbelievable and that X-ray was not marked to prove the nature of the injuries. The learned counsel would further submit that the genuineness of Ex.P1 complaint has not been proved and that the Prosecution has failed to prove as to whether the injury was caused by aruval or spade and that PW.9 is not the author of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 and therefore, he is not a competent person to speak about the same. The learned counsel would further submit that since there was previous enmity between the families of the accused and the victim, there was every possibility of foisting a false case against the accused and that the