The prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused and discrepancies in witness statements raised serious doubts about the truth of the prosecution case, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem District in Crl.A.No.42 of 2017 by judgement dated 24.08.2017 and confirming the Judgement and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur, Salem District in C.C.No.42 of 2007 dated 24.03.2017 and set aside the judgement dated 24.08.2017.)

1. The Petitioner has preferred the above Revision, challenging the judgement passed in Crl.A.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, Salem District, confirming the Judgement passed in C.C.No.42 of 2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 Attur, Salem District.

2. The Petitioner was charged for the Offences under Sections 294(b) and 325 IPC. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Petitioner for the following offences:-

3. On Appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2006 at about 6:00 P.M, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were standing in front of Kalpaganoore Pallakadu Mariyamman Temple. The Petitioner and another person put up a thatched shed in a common public place. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned them the Petitioner and another person attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2 with wooden sticks and caused injuries to both P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Petitioner is alleged to have bitten P.W.2’s left side ear and caused grievous injuries. Based on the statement of P.W.2, the Respondent registered the case and filed Final Report against the accused persons.

5. The Prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and marked 9 exhibits on his side. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were injured witnesses. P.W.3 to P.W.5 are the other eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.6 speaks about the motive. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the observation Mahazar witnesses. P.W.9 speaks about the motive. P.W.10 is a Doctor who treated the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer.

6. Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the prosecution has suppressed the manner in which the occurrence took place and in such circumstances, it is a highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of witnesses. The learned counsel would submit that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 had stated before the Doctor, (P.W.10) that they were attacked by five persons. However, the charge sheet was filed only as against the Petitioner and the other accused (A2) viz. Pichamuthu. The Petitioner and the other accused were injured in the occurrence and the prosecution has not explained the injuries of the accused. The Investigation Officer had admitted in his evidence that both the Petitioner and the other accused were treated as inpatients for the injuries suffered by them. These aspects have been ignored by the Courts below. Further, the learned counsel submitted that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that he came to know from his brother, P.W.2 that he was bitten by the Petitioner. His evidence is hearsay. The learned counsel therefore submitted that P.W.2 cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel further submitted that there were alterations in the Penal Provisions and time in the FIR.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are very clear and the Petitioner has not made out any ground for interference in the Revision. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the scope of Revision is limited and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidenc