JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant to to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District in S.C.No.132 of 2014 dated 20.06.2017 wherein the trial Court acquitted A1 from the charges under Sections 452, 326, 294(b) and 307 of IPC and A2 from the charges under Sections 452, 294(b) and 323 of IPC. As against the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court, the victim P.W.1 has preferred this appeal.

2.The prosecution case is that on 09.10.2013 at about 08.00 a.m., both the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the appellant and when the same was questioned by the appellant, A1 abused in filthy language and assaulted with bill book (aruval) towards neck and the same was restrained by the second respondent. Thereby, she sustained injury at her right hand and left hand. A2 also abused obscene words and assaulted her below the right eye. Already there was a civil dispute pending between the parties and thereby, the accused developed the enmity with the appellant and assaulted them. Thereafter, the appellant went to the Government hospital through ambulance. Thereafter, the police went to the hospital and obtained complaint, Ex.P1 and thereafter P.W.6 registered FIR, Ex.P7 and thereafter, P.W.7 has taken the case for investigation and examined the witnesses and collected documents. Thereafter, P.W.8 investigated the case and filed final report for the offence under Sections 452, 294(b), 307 of IPC as against A1 and Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC as against A2. Thereafter, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam furnished the copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and then committed the case to the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai made over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Pudukottai. The trial Court has framed the charges for the offence under Sections 452, 294(b), 307 of IPC as against A1 and under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC as against A2. After framing charges, the charges were read over and explained to the accused but the accused denied the charges.

3.The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and marked M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., in respect of incriminating evidence as against them and they denied the evidences.

4.Upon perusing the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court acquitted A1 from the charges under Sections 452, 326, 294(b) and 307 of IPC and A2 from the charges under Sections 452, 294(b) and 323 of IPC. As against the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court, the victim P.W.1 has preferred this appeal.

5.Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant has preferred this present appeal on the following grounds:-

The judgment of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The trial Court is erred in discarding the case of the prosecution in total by concluding that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffers from various contradictions and improvements. The trial Court failed to take note of the medical evidence and P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed about the injuries sustained by the victims and the medical evidence also corroborated the evidence of victim with regard to injuries but the trial Court failed to consider the same. The trial Court failed to note that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are residing in the disputed property and the accused have trespassed into the property and committed the offence. The trial Court has wrongly came to the conclusion that mere wrong mention of the name of the witnesses in the Observation Mahazer could not be the sole reason to discard the entire evidence of the Mahazer witnesses. The trial Court has given muc