The court affirmed convictions based on credible eyewitness testimony while allowing leniency in sentencing for first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant / 2nd accused, challenging the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Court, Madurai, in Spl.S.C.No.54 of 2016.

2. The appellant is the second accused who has been convicted for the offences under Section 324 of IPC .

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2015 at about 12.00 noon, the accused persons with an intention to insult P.W.1 who belongs to Schedule Caste, made caste remarks against him and in continuance there of, the second accused had stabbed P.W.1's head with an iron hook and caused simple injury. The first accused pushed P.W.1 on the floor and kicked him on his mouth and left knee ribs and caused simple injury on the left side of his head. A case was registered in Crime No.311 of 2015 by the respondent police and it was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. After taking cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.54 of 2016, charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act read with Sections 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC against the accused persons.

4. On the side of the prosecution, ten witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and fourteen documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14.

One material object has been marked as M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the accused, before the trial Court.

5. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, after perusing the materials on record, the trial Judge found the appellant / second accused guilty for the following offences and imposed with the punishments as shown under:

6. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / second accused has preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant / second accused submitted that the contradictions between the evidence of the eye witnesses and the injured witnesses, with regard to the incriminating facts about the second accused and the weapon recovered, also did not tally with its description. As per the doctor's evidence, the injuries found on the body of the victim could have been caused even by falling down but they were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The injured witness was examined as P.W.1, who is the complainant, and he has stated in his complaint that on the date of occurrence, ie., on 22.09.2015, at about 12.00 p.m., when he went to Perungudi Wine Shop to consume brandy and when he was returning after consuming brandy, the accused persons intercepted him and warned him that he should not come to bar and so saying, the second accused attacked him with iron hook on the back side of his head and the first accused kicked him with legs. Both the accused abused him by making caste remarks. They also threatened him that he should not tell this to any one and run away. Thereafter, the accused came to the hospital for treatment with the help of 108 Ambulance. The Doctor who had registered the accident register has been examined as P.W.10 and the accident register is marked as Ex.P7. The accused told the doctor that he was attacked by two known persons with iron hook at around 01.00 p.m., on 22.09.2015. He was found to be having lacerated injury measuring 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the parieto occipital region of the head. P.W.10, the doctor has also deposed in his evidence about the facts. He also stated that the accused smelt alcohol when he was examined.

8. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appel