O R D E R

i n a This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.04.2021 made l p r 1/16

o c e d

in Crl.M.P.No.803 of 2021 in C.C.No.296 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi,Tiruvannamalai District, dismissing the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner/accused No.3. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2015, at about 20.30 hours with respect of a dispute regarding the Government poramboke land opposite to the house of the defacto complainant, the accused had formed into an unlawful assembly and had abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and that A1, A2 and A4 have assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log on the head and on the chest and A3, A5, A6 have assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod on the back side and on the private part and the accused A1 to A6 have also assaulted the wife of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated them. On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent registered a case against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) I.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, filed the final report against the accused on 20.06.2015 and the final report was taken on file in C.C.No.296 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) I.P.C. The respondent had cited 10 witnesses and 7 documents. The petitioner, who is the third accused in this case had filed a discharge application on the ground stating that he is not involved in the above said occurrence. The petitioner has submitted that he was not present at the scene of occurrence during the relevant time and that he was in Chennai pursuing his law course in School of Excellence and that during the particular time, on 02.05.2015, he was attending marriage of his friend viz., one Praveen Babu at RJ Resideny, T.Nagar and that his mother was the president of Salavedu Panchayat during the period of the alleged offence and that there was a civil dispute between the parties thereby he was falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. The trial court finding that the defense of alibi and the documents relied on by the petitioner/accused for proof of alibi cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the discharge application, had dismissed the same and against which, the present revision has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was undergoing law course at the School of Excellence during the relevant time and he was staying at Chennai in a Mansion and during the period between 29.04.2015 and 14.05.2015, the final semester examination for the petitioner was going on and thereby, he was not present at the scene of occurrence. The petitioner's mother is the president of Salavedu Panchayat during the occurrence. The defacto complainant/second respondent had trespassed and encroached certain parts of Government poramboke land in Survey No.479/1 and Survey No.465 and 456 and there was a proposal by the Panchayat for passing a resolution based on the petition given by a general public for erection of Dr.Ambedkar statute in the place where there was encroachment by the second respondent and there was enmity between the defacto complainant and the petitioner and thereby he was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel would further submit that the statement recorded from the witnesses and the medical records produced by the respondent would only disclose for the offences punishable under section 323 I.P.C. whereas the final report has been filed for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner in this case had taken the defence of alibi and he had also produced the documents before the Trial Court. Though the Trial Court is not at all required to look into the documents at the time of deciding the discharge pe