Doubts raised regarding the prosecution's case due to the delay in registering the First Information Report, contradictions in the evidence, and the uncertainty surrounding the identity of the assailant rendered the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court doubtful.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C., to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment passed against the appellant on 24.07.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquit him from the charge.)

1. This appeal against the order of conviction is preferred by the sole accused, who was found guilty and sentenced him to undergo one year SI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months SI for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.09.2015 at 05.30 p.m., while Nagaraj (PW1) was grazing cattle in the field of Nataraj Gounder of Mamballi village, the accused and his six years old son came in a two wheeler and stopped at the place, where Nagaraj (PW1) was grazing the cattle. The accused used abusive language and questioned him, why he has not come for work in his field, but grazing the cattle in his field. Then, he took a wooden stick and started beating Nagaraj on the right wrist and forehead. Also kicked him over chest by his legs, causing pain and injury. Thereafter, the accused threatened the injured witness saying if he comes to his land again, he will be killed. The injured witness belonged to the scheduled caste. For having abuse him by using caste name, hitting him with stick and kicked on his chest, the prosecution has registered a case in Crime No.176 of 2015 under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(i) r/w 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 2015. On completion of investigation, based on the materials, the trial Court framed charges as found in the Final Report.

3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, marked 11 exhibits and two material objects. The trial Court found that, the prosecution has proved that the fractured injury at the left hand sustained by PW-1 was caused by the accused using M.O.1 (Wooden Stick). As far as the other charges are concerned, the trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. For the proved charge, the Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year SI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 3 months SI.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is an inordinate delay in registering the First Information Report by more than 24 hours and another 24 hours in forwarding the First Information Report to the Magistrate. The Accident Report (Ex.P6), which is the contemporaneous document recorded soon after the incident clearly state that, PW-1 was assaulted by an unknown person. The intimation to the police had been sent immediately after admitting PW-1. While so, the First Information Report registered almost 24 hours after the occurrence says that, the accused is the assailant, who caused the injury. This First Information Report is based on the complaint (Ex.P-1) alleged to have been given by the defacto complainant (PW-1) 24 hours after the occurrence.

5. As far as the veracity of this complaint, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, the complaint(Ex.P1) contains LTI of the complainant. It is supposed to have been registered on 15.09.2015 at about 16.30 hours. Whereas, PW-1 in his chief examination has stated that, he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance by his son and his brother Manickam. He informed the person in the ambulance about the identity of the assailant. On the next day, at about 10.00 a.m., the police came and enquired him. Whereas, contrary to PW-1 evidence, Nandhakumar (PW-2), S/o Eswaramoorthy (PW-1) has deposed that he and his uncle Manickam took the defacto complainant (PW-1) in the ambulance and admitted him in the hospital. On the same day night, the police came to the hospital and enquired. On the next day, the police came at 10.00 a.m., and enquired his father (PW-1). Manickam (PW-3) also had deposed concurring