O R D E R

This revision petition is filed by the accused 1 & 2 being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding them guilty for offences under Section 341 and 326 of I.P.C. The trial Court convicted the accused 1 & 2 for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C and sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default one week S.I also convicted them for offence under Section 326 and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default one month S.I.

2. The gist of the prosecution case as unfold during the course of investigation is that the defacto complainant T.C.Rajmohan and the accused Harikesavan who is the 2nd revision petitioner herein were partners in finance business. There was some dispute in managing the business. Therefore, due to the said enmity, on 30.05.2011 at about 8.45 p.m., when the defacto complainant T.C.Rajmohan was returning to his home in the self driven car, he was voluntarily restrained by four persons near lake bund of Thuthipet Village, near his residence.

When the defacto complainant get down from the car, the 2nd accused caught hold of his shirt and slapped on his cheek. The 2nd accused took a stone and thrown on the left leg causing fractured injury. While throwing the stone, he also utter 'you get lost'. Charges were framed against them under Sections 341 and 307 of I.P.C.

3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and produced 1 material object.

4. The delay in filing F.I.R, while the complaint is against 4 persons only two were prosecuted, contradictions between P.W.1 to P.W.4 were pointed by the defence for acquittal. However, the Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence held that the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt in respect of charge under Section 341 of I.P.C. Insofar as charge under Section 307 of I.P.C., it held that there is no intention of causing death and likelihood of causing death, therefore, offence under Section 307 of I.P.C, is not made out. Only offence under Section 326 of I.P.C, is made out.

5. The Trial Court, on considering the fact that, soon after the incident the victim was taken to the hospital he become unconscious. Therefore, Manokaran (P.W.14), Sub-Inspector, who went to the C.M.C hospital on receiving the intimation, could not record the statement of the victim, F.I.R was therefore not registered. Only on 03.06.2011, when the injured victim regained his conscious his statement was recorded and F.I.R in Crime No.323 of 2011 was registered. Later, on recording the further statement of the victim, charges were altered. Since the delay in registered the F.I.R duly explained by P.W.14/Manokaran, same cannot be a fact adverse to the prosecution.

6. Regarding embellishment in the statements of the victim witness, the Trial Court disbelieved the witness regarding snatching of two phones and cash of Rs.1 lakh by the accused persons. However, believed the statement of witnesses in respect of other allegations and has held accused 1 & 2 are found guilty of the offences under Section 341 of I.P.C and Section 326 of I.P.C

7. On appeal, the Learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

8. The present revision petition is filed on the ground that the reasoning given for the delay in registering the F.I.R is untenable and contrary to the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.2/Kajenthiran & P.W.3/Vimal Raj. These two witnesses have specifically stated that on the early hours of 31.05.2011, the respondent police came to the C.M.C Hospital, Vellore, to make enquiry. Kajenthiran/P.W.2 had specifically stated that, soon after the incident, the injured witness P.W.1/T.C.Rajmohan, narrated the incident to him and named the accused persons as the assailants.

9. Therefore, when the respondent police had information about the cognizable offence, the police ought to have registered the F.I.R and should not have awaited for the injured witness to reg