The testimony of a trustworthy and cogent injured witness is sufficient for conviction for assault and rioting, but convictions under special acts require corroboration that is not contradicted by other prosecution witnesses.

ORDER

This criminal appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment passed in SC.No.18 of 2019 dated 16.11.2021 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2016, the accused and the injured had played cricket match and during the match the injured and the accused quarreled with each other. Thereafter the quarrel was pacified by the villagers. Therefore, the accused had motive to do away the life of the deceased and very often they quarrelled wherever they had seen each other. While being so on 25.11.2016 at about 8 p.m., while the friend of PW1 came from Bangalore and they were proceeding in their two wheeler near Sampath tea stall, the first accused came to the tea shop along with others and stopped their vehicle. The first accused gave a blow with a knife on the head of the injured and as such, he sustained injuries. They also caused damage to the bike. On a complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.283 of 2016. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. The prosecution produced material objects as MO.1 and MO.2. On the side of the accused, no one was examined. However, Ex.D1 was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced them as follows: A1 to A3 were found guilty for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.800/- each, in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. A4, A5, A9 & A10 were found guilty for the offence under Section 147 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.600/- each, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. A1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 1 week simple imprisonment. A1 to A3 & A5 were found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. A1, A2 & A6 were found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 months rigorous imprisonment. A3 was found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the charges in accordance with law. There are contradictions between the evidence of PW10 and others. The prosecution also failed to prove the recovery since PW7 and PW8 turned hostile. Further, the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is not at all attracted against the accused and even then, the trial court mechanically convicted the accused.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured had deposed as PW1. He categorically deposed about the occurrence and also the injury sustained. PW10 who treated PW1, categorically deposed that he recorded the accident register and issued wound certificate. Further the bike which was driven by PW1 was also attacked by the accused and damage was caused to the tune of Rs.2,760/ . In order to prove the same, PW11 had