The injured's evidence and medical evidence play a crucial role in establishing the charges of assault under the IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Krishnagiri dated 08.07.2019 in Crl.App.No.51 of 2018 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri dated 09.10.2018 in C.C.No.136 of 2015.)

1. Convicted 2nd accused (A2) is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for alleged offence under Sections 294 (b), 341 and 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC.

3. Before the trial Court, A1 stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 341 of IPC and A2 was charged for the alleged offence under Sections 29b(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC.

4. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and exhibits viz., Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. No material object was marked. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in.

5. (a) The trial Court has convicted the accused 1 and 2 and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 294(b) IPC, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The trial Court imposed a fine of Rs.500/- on A1 for offence under Section 341 of IPC failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

(b) The trial Court further convicted and sentenced A2 to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and imposed fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under Section 324 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and imposed fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC.

6. Against the said judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri, A2 filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.Ap.No.51 of 2018 and the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, the revision.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A2 submitted that the evidence of injured-PW1 and PW2, is not believable and the alleged weapon said to have been used was not seized by the police. No explanation has been offered by the investigation for the non-seizure of the weapon. The sentence passed by the trial Court is excessive.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court.

9. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the record, I find that on the occurrence day i.e. on 08.07.2015 at 9 am, when PW1 Chinnathambi was standing near his house since the fence was removed by his workers for the purpose of white washing, A1 and A2 came to the place of occurrence and they quarrelled with the defacto complainant and also scolded him by using filthy language and A1 restrained the defacto complainant by holding him tightly and A2 took a billhook from his house and made a laceration over the parietal region of the head of PW1 measuring 12x1x1cm, Bone Exposed, Bone cut present 10x1x1cm with minimal and in the course of quarrel, A1 and A2 also threatened PW1 with dire consequences.

10. To support the case of prosecution, the defacto complainant was examined as PW1. In his evidence he has clearly deposed that there is a fence in between his house and accused house and it was removed by the workers of PW1 for white washing purpose. Due to that on 08.07.2015 both the accused came to his house at 9.00am and both of them used filthy language in the public place and also A1 hold him tightly and restrained him from moving and A2 went to his house and brought a billhook and also injured him in the center of head and both of them also threatened him with dire consequences. The occurrence was witnessed by PW4-Sriram and PW2-Sakthivel.

11. After going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, I find that there is nothing in the cross examination to discredit their evidence. A2 stands charged for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. PW6 is the Doctor, who had given treatment. On a combined reading of t