The conviction under Section 326 IPC was upheld based on reliable witness testimonies and corroborating medical evidence, affirming that defects in investigation do not negate the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Court at Puducherry in Crl. A. No. 44 of 2022, by confirming the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.C. No. 63 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate -II, Puducherry.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.

3. The respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.19 of 2017 on 13.03.2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The respondent-Police, after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 63 of 2017.

4. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. However the trial Court not found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and he was acquitted of those charges.

5. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl. A. No. 44 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, already case in counter was filed. Though the de-facto complainant and A1 to A3 admitted their guilt, the Courts below failed to consider the same. P.Ws.1 to 3 are relative witnesses who are interested witnesses and due to personal motive, they filed a false case as against the petitioner. Though P.Ws.4 and 7 who are independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has not declared them as hostile witnesses. Though the Doctor who was examined as P.W5 admitted that the scan report and x-ray report and the same were not marked as exhibits. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The Doctor put a suggestion that when a person fell down, there is a possibility of having such injury. Recovery of weapon was not proved by the prosecution. Though independent witnesses were present at the time of alleged occurrence, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. There was no corroboration between evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 with independent witnesses.

7. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence, especially evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7. Though the petitioner was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, even in the absence of medical evidence, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry. The appellate Court has also not appreciated the material evidence produced by the petitioner and the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal, simply endorsed the views of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision is filed by the accused.

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/Police submitted that P.W.2 is the victim who has clearly spoken about the commission and involvement of the petitioner in the offfence. There is specific over tact as against the petitioner. P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses and their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.5-Doctor has als