JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Revision has been directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, made in CC No.30 of 2015, dated 25.05.2017, which was confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in CA No.55 of 2017, dated 04.03.2020.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.07.2016, due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner abused in filthy language and assaulted the de-facto complainant by iron rod and caused grievous injury to him.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, on proper appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further undergo 1 month of Simple Imprisonment. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in CA No.55 of 2017. On 04.03.2020, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial court. Against which, the petitioner is before this court.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Even though so many grounds were raised in the grounds of revision, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the allegations found in the FIR do not prima facie constitute of any offence or make out a case against the petitioner and there are contradictions in so far as the injuries mentioned in the complaint and the hospital records and there are material contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and prays for allowing the Criminal Revision.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent/State argued that the concurrent findings of the courts below is on proper appreciation of the materials available on record and prays for dismissal of the Criminal Revision.

7. PW1 is the injured and he gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police. PW1 in his complaint statement stated that on 04.07.2014 at 1.00 am, after dropping his sister-in-law, he returned in his two wheeler to see the Drama in the temple festival and when he reached near Karuppar Kovil, at that time, the accused Prabakaran and one Karthick walked on the centre of the road and it was inconvenient to drive his vehicle and for that, he asked the accused to leave place for his vehicle to go further and at that time, Accused Prabhakara due to previous enmity with his sister-in-law, took the iron rod and caused injury on his scalp and left hand and it was pacified by Karthick and his wife Revathi and then, he was taken to the Government Hospital and he gave the complaint statement.

8. PW1 in his evidence stated that prior to the occurrence, there was enmity between his sister-in-law Kalyani and the accused and on 04.07.2014, after dropping his sister-in-law in her house, returned to see the Drama and at that time, he asked the accused to walk on the side of the road to leave place to driver his vehicle, for that the accused used filthy language and took the iron rod and caused injury on his scalp and left head. PW1 in his complaint stated that the occurrence was seen by one Karthick and his wife Revathi and they only pacified the dispute between the accused and PW1. But PW1 during his cross examination stated that at the time of occurrence, there was no person available in the place of occurrence. Further, during his cross examination, he stated as follows:-

Hence from the cross examination of PW1, it reveals that several persons saw the occurrence. But the above persons were not cited as witnesses. Further, PW1 in his complaint stated that only due to previous enmity between his sister-in-law and the petitioner/accused, the occurrence took place. But during his cross examination, PW1 stated that prior to one year, there was enmity between him and the accused. Hence, there are lot of contradictions between the FIR and the evidence of PW1.

9. PW2 is the Sister-in-law of PW1. PW2 is not t