O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur made in Crl.A.No.44 of 2016 dated 20.03.2017 modifying the offence and convicting petitioner under Section 323 IPC, sentencing him undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment confirming the conviction with modification of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri made in C.C.No.193 of 2010 by judgment dated 11.05.2016 who convicted the petitioner under Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

2. The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.193 of 2010 was charged during trial for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 325 of IPC. The trial Court by judgment dated 11.05.2016 acquitted the petitioner for offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and convicted him for offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.44 of 2016 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, and the Principal District and Sessions Court, by judgment dated 20.03.2017, altered the Section from 325 to 323 IPC and modified the sentence of the petitioner to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.

3. The gist of the complaint is that on 22.04.2010 at about

7.15 a.m., while defacto complainant was returning from his agricultural land, due to previous enmity regarding a land dispute, he was scolded by the accused using obscene words. The accused attacked him using stone and caused grievous injury on his right hand. Thereafter, the defacto complainant got admitted in the hospital as inpatient. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint to the respondent police and on receipt of the complaint, a case in Crime No.264 of 2010 for offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC registered. Later, it was altered to Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(ii) IPC and final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri on 07.05.2010. During the trial, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant was former Panchayat President with whom the petitioner had some dispute. PW1 in his evidence admits that nobody witnessed the assault on him. The complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Ponneri through him Ex.P1, the complaint was marked. In his evidence, he admits that he affixed signature in the complaint Ex.P1, and the complaint was prepared in the Police Station. What is written in the complaint, he is not aware. He admits that there was previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. He admits that PW2 is a close relative to him. He further submits that no mention about the presence of PW2 and PW3 in the complaint. PW2 admits the dispute between the petitioner and PW1. He also admits his relationship with PW1. He categorically states PW2 is not a witness to the occurrence. He further submitted that his statement was not recorded by the Police and no complaint was lodged by him. PW3 who claims he is not a relative of PW1. He admits that he is his neighbour who projected to be present in the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that these three witnesses are projected as eye witnesses. PW1 does not state the presence of PW2 & PW3 at the time of assault. He further submitted that PW4 not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 and PW6 are the observation mahazar and rough sketch witnesses. PW5 admits that on the request of the Police, he had signed the observation mahazar and he is not aware of its content. Likewise, PW6 states that he only affixed his signature without knowing the