An unexplained delay in transmitting the FIR to the court, combined with material contradictions in eye-witness testimonies and a lack of strong motive, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, justifying the restoration of an acquittal.

PRAYER:

Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 24.02.2020 made in C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District, whereby partly allowing the appeal and thereby set aside acquittal of the trial Court in C.C.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District by judgment dated 01.03.2018.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed challenging the judgment passed in C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District, whereby the judgment of the trial Court was reversed and the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 506(ii) IPC.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 08.01.2015 at about 21.00 hrs, while he was standing near a temple and talking with one Manikandan, the de-facto complainant, namely Senthil, the 2nd respondent herein, came there and told the accused that since both their wives had studied together, he told the accused to bring his wife to his residence. All of a sudden, a quarrel arose between them, during which, the accused allegedly kicked him with leg, slapped on his cheek, pushed him down and assaulted him with wooden log, thereby caused grievous injuries. Pursuant to which, the respondent/police registered an FIR in Crime No.4 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, and 506(ii) IPC.

3. After completion of the investigation by the 1st respondent, the case was taken on record and charges were framed for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, and 506(ii) IPC. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked exhibits Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the accused, no one was examined to disprove the charges.

4. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted him from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2019 before the Appellate Court/Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. The appellate Court partly allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the appellant/accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC and in respect of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC, the accused is acquitted under Section 386(a) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that even before the appellate Court, PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and did not depose anything to attract the offence under Section 323 of IPC.

6. Though the notice served on the second respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

7. It appears that there are material contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW6, who are projected as eye-witness. Further, though the distance between the police station and the Court is only 4 kms, however, the FIR was sent to the Court after a delay of 10 days from the date of the