The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on unassailable evidence, despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to calling for the records relating to conviction and sentence imposed by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.31 of 2006 dated 23.06.2009 as modified by the Hon'ble 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in C.A.No.31 of 2009 dated 23.09.2014 and set aside the same and thereby acquit the petitioners herein from all the charges framed against them.)

1. This Criminal Revision is filed by the accused 1 & 2 in S.C.No.31 of 2006 dated 23.06.2009 imposed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore as modified in C.A.No.31 of 2009 by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, vide order dated 23.09.2014.

2. First petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 294, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC and the second petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 506(ii) and 307 r/w 114 of I.P.C by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.31 of 2006 and sentenced to undergo as follows:

Second Petitioner/A2:-

3. On appeal, the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial Court on the 1st accused was confirmed for offence under Sections 294, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., acquitted him for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. As far as 2nd accused is concerned, the sentence imposed under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C was confirmed. Whereas, the conviction under Section 307 r/w 114 of I.P.C altered to 324 r/w 114 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence to three years R.I.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the version of the prosecution is contrary to evidence. The inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R and forwarding the same to the Judicial Magistrate, not taken note by the Court below. No obscene or lascivious words uttered by the 1st accused, same not proved. In spite of that, the 1st accused erroneously convicted for offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. Similarly, when there is no evidence to believe that the accused used intimidatory words, conviction under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is to be set aside for want of evidence. Also submitted that, the Appellate Court found that the offence committed by the 2nd accused under Section 307 of I.P.C is not made out. But, only offence under Section 324 r/w 114 of I.P.C is made out. The Trial Judge ought to have imposed sentence for 6 months R.I only on par with sentence imposed to 1st accused for the same offence the enhanced punishment of three years R.I to 2nd accused for the very same offence in the same transaction is against fairness and equity.

5. The brief case of the prosecution is that, on 24.12.2004, at 8.30 p.m when Tamilselvan (P.W.1) and his relative Thiru.Mathiyazhagan were sitting in the entrance of the house and due to previous enmity, the 1st accused/Prakash & 2nd accused/Velmurugan using abusive words picked quarrel. A2/Velmurugan gone to the nearby shop took Aruval and gave to 1st accused and instigated him to attack. Accordingly, A1/Prakash got Aruval from A2/Velmurugan and attacked Tamilselvan, causing cut injury on P.W.1 forearm and right side back. Thereafter, A2/Velmurugan, took the knife from the 1st accused and attacked Thiru.Mathiyazhagan, on his head saying 'get lost'. Mr.Tamilselvan and Mr.Mathiyazhagan, sustained cut injury and fell down. On seeing the public, rushing towards the spot. Both the accused threatened them showing knife and fleded. Mr.Tamilselvan, after sending his uncle Mathiyazhagan for treatment to the hospital came to the Police Stat