O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The 2nd respondent police registered a case against the 1st respondent herein in Crime No.134 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(2) I.P.C. After investigation, the 2nd respondent police had laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur only for the offence under Section 294(b) and 326 I.P.C.

2. After completing the formalities, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.134 of 2016 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur and the learned Judicial Magistrate had framed charges for the offence under Section 294(b) and 326 I.P.C., and after trial, found guilty of offence against 1st respondent/accused for offence under Sec.324 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to undergo one week simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default, to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the de facto complainant filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. The learned Principal Sessions Judge had taken the appeal on file in Crl.A. No. 36 of 2018 and after hearing arguments, the appellate court confirmed the guilt of 1st respondent/accused and conviction, but only modified the period of sentence to the period, which he has undergone and enhanced the fine from Rs.100/- to Rs.750/-, in default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of appellate court, the de facto complainant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case to set aside both the judgments of Trial Court and the appellate court and punish the 1st respondent/accused for the offence under Sec.294(b) and 326 I.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that though the prosecution has proved this case beyond reasonable doubt, the injured witness has clearly deposed about the incident and medical evidence also corroborated the same. The Trial Court though not found the guilt of the 1st respondent/accused for offence under Sec.326, however convicted him under Sec.324 of I.PC. and the sentence is not proportionate to the offence committed. However, the trial court has erroneously altered the charge from Sec.326 I.P.C. to Sec.324 I.P.C. The appellate court also failed to re-appreciate the evidence and partly allowed the appeal and the period, which the 1st respondent had undergone imprisonment was treated as sentence of imprisonment and only increased the fine amount from Rs.100/- to Rs.750/-, which is also not proportionate to the offence committed by the 1st respondent/accused. Therefore, aggrieved over the same, the de facto complainant has filed the present revision. He would further submit that the injured was examined as P.W.1. He has categorically deposed the offence committed by the 1st respondent. The evidence of P.W.1 was fully corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and 3. P.W.5, Doctor, who gave treatment to the injured witness P.W.1 and he noted that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous in nature and copy of medical certificate and wound certificate were marked as Ex.P2 and P3. The Investigating officer has not conducted a fair investigation and though the commission of offence under Sec. 147, 148, 294(b) and 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. is made out, they altered the charge for the offence under Sec.294 (b) and 326 I.P.C. The trial court framed the charges and had confirmed the offence committed by the 1st respondent/accused. The injured witness has also spoken about the grievous injury caused by the 1st respondent/accused. His evidence was corroborated by P.W.2 and 5 and both the courts below failed to appreciate the same. Therefore, the judgment of both courts are perverse and are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for 1st respondent/accused would submit that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court imposed the sentence