J U D G M E N T

Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.05.2015, at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant herein who is the resident opposite to the shop of the P.W.1 (Tr.Ismail) was sitting in the motor cycle owned by P.W.1's son. P.W.1 asked the accused to get down from the two wheeler. The accused got down but after two hours came to the shop of P.W.1 picked quarrel and poured the hot boiling milk on him. P.W.1 sustained 18% burn injury over his chest and abdomen. He got admitted in the hospital. Pursuant to his complaint, case was registered against the petitioner/appellant herein for offences under Sections 307 & 324 of I.P.C.

3. The trial Court, on analysing the evidence of P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses, had convicted the accused for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one year S.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default, 3 months S.I.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 307 & 324 of I.P.C., the trial Court framed charge only for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C since there was no intention to cause death or likelihood of causing death.

6. The Trial Court found no ground to convict the accused for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. However, altered the charges to Section 324 of I.P.C and sentenced him, which is not based on any reliable evidence. While both the eye witnesses turned hostile, solely based on evidence of P.W.1 and the injury mentioned in wound certificate marked as Ex.P.6, the accused was convicted. The trial Court failed to note that the accused also sustained burn injury on his thigh, and was admitted in the jail hospital by Investigating Officer has in the cross examination admits, he came to know the accused was treated in jail hospital for the burn injury. Therefore, when the accused has also sustained injury in the same transaction no proper investigation conducted in the regard to his injury. Due to the lopsided investigation, case has been registered against the accused without ascertaining the real aggressor, hence the judgment of the trial Court to be set aside.

7. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 (Ismail) and P.W.9 (Dr.Senthil) read along with Ex.P.6 wound certificate clearly prove the guilt of the accused for causing burn injury mentioned in wound certificate Ex.P.6 and Accident Register Ex.P.7. The injury sustained by the victim P.W.1 is 18% burn over his chest and abdomen. The burn injury alleged to have been sustained by the accused on his thigh is not borne by record. Except an admission by the Investigating Officer in the cross examination and even assuming the injury sustained by the accused is true, it should have been a self inflicted injury while throwing hot boiling milk pot over the victim P.W.1 (Ismail). Therefore, there is no ground to interfere the well considered judgment of the trial Court.

8. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses [P.W.1 to P.W.10] and marked 12 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12). From the evidence available, the trial Court has found that offence under Section 324 of I.P.C alone is made out and altered the conviction to lesser offence viz., from Section 307 of I.P.C to Section 324 of I.P.C

9. P.W.1 (Ismail), who is the injured witness has spoken about the overt act of the accused. He was treated as in-patient in Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai for three days and thereafter, got discharged to be treated at Kerala. Though, document is produced for his treatment at Kerala. Ex.P.6 wound certificate indicates the intensity of the burn injury sustained by him is 18%. This has been spoken by Dr.Senthil (P.W.9), who has treated the defacto complainant (P.W.1). It is suggested by Dr.Sent