O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangagiri in S.C.No.168 of 2012, which was confirmed by the III Additional District Judge, Salem, in the judgment dated 07.04.2015 made in C.A.No.40 of 2014.

2.The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.351 of 2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC., against the petitioner herein. After completion of investigation, the respondent/police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sangagiri and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.5 of 2011. Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Salem, where the case was taken on file in S.C.No.168 of 2012 and the same was made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangagiri, for disposal.

3.The Trial Court, after trial, convicted the petitioner herein, for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC., to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone was ordered to be given set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

4.Challenging the trial court's Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District & Sessions Court, Salem. The Principal Sessions Judge taken the appeal on the file in C.A.No.40 of 2014 and made it over to the III-Additional District & Sessions Judge for disposal. After analysing the entire materials on record, the learned III-Additional District & Sessions Judge, confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

5.Now, challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner has preferred the present revision case, before this court.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and related witnesses. There was a delay in filing the First Information Report as well as a delay in sending the same to the court, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1/injured witness regarding injuries and the injuries sustained by him. P.W.2 has stated that petitioner/accused had inflicted three cut injuries with Machete (Aruval) on his left shoulder, but the medical evidence shows that the victim sustained two cut injuries, which is a material contradiction and it goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. Further, the Investigation Officer has not recovered the bloodstain clothes for sending the same to the forensic laboratory, to identify whether the blood in the clothes matches with the blood of the de-facto complainant or not. Further, he submits that the forensic report regarding the weapons is misconceived. The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner/accused has committed the charged offences. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is necessary that the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the petitioner. There are many contradictions and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Due to previous enmity and personal motive between the appellant and P.W.1/victim, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner by PW.1/victim before the respondent/police. The police and the prosecution have not conducted fair investigation. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence and did not conduct a fair trial and wrongly convicted the petitioner, without any material evidence. The appellate Court has also failed to re-appreciate the entire evidence properly. There is perversity in re-appreciating the evidence, and it warrants interference of this Court and the conviction and sentence passed by the