It is alleged that Pandian divorced her and contracted second marriage with one Revathy.This appears to be the motive for the accused to bear ill-will towards Pandian, while so, Pandian had reconciled with Podhumponnu.Heard the learned counsel on either side.2.Criminal Revision Petition.Criminal Revision Petition.No.31 of 2010 has been filed by the first accused questioning the judgment imposed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court finding him guilty.Since both the Criminal Revision Petitions are interlinked, this Court heard them together.But ignoring the same on 05.04.2005, at about 03.00 a.m., there was a murderous assault on the revision petitioner / victim.The revision petitioner had sustained serious injuries including head injury and three fractures.Crime No.56 of 2005, was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, karur District.The matter was investigated and final report was filed.The charges under Sections 341 and 307 were framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 while charge under Section 341 and 307 r/w 34 were framed against the third accused.http://www.judis.nic.in 44.In support of the charges, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.11 were marked and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked.M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also marked.On the side of the accused, three witnesses were examined and Ex.D1-Attendance Register was also marked.5.The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 25.01.2008 acquitted Accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the charges and found the first accused alone guilty of the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. The first accused was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C., and for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo two year rigorous imprisonment and a sum of Rs.1000/- was also imposed as fine.The default sentence was also imposed on him.6.The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 05.09.2008 while sustaining the conviction imposed on the first accused, has held that the period of sentence already undergone by him would be sufficient.However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Magistrate was confirmed.7.The learned counsel on either side reiterated the respectivehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 contentions.As regards the second accused, he had pleaded alibi.In support of his stand, Ex.D.1-Attendance Register was also marked.He also examined the defence witnesses D.W.2 and D.W,.3, who are the Principal and Warden of the Institution, in support of his stand that he was elsewhere.The learned trial Judge after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record chose to accept the plea of alibi pleaded by the second accused.9.I am of the view that there is no necessity to interfere with the said findings.The occurrence had taken place at about 03.00 am.On 05.04.2005, on the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., Ex.P1 complaint was lodged and Ex.P.7-Firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Information Report was registered.In the complaint itself, the first accused has been implicated.If the revision petitioner was attacked by somebody, there was no need for the petitioner to implicate Muthusamy / first respondent herein.10.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other corroborating evidence.P.W.1 is on injured witness.The injuries would speak for themselves.In any event, I am only exercising the revisional jurisdiction.Both the Courts below have clearly found that Muthusamy was guilty of the offence, with which he was charged.I cannot re- appreciate the evidence.Therefore, I confirm the conviction imposed on him.Now comes the question of punishment.The sentence certainly warrants interference.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place wayback in the year 2005 and since more than 15 years have elapsed, this Court would not be justified in sending Muthusamy to prison.Obviously, Muthsamy must be a senior citizen by now.Therefore, interest of justice will behttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 served by directing Muthusamy to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the revision petitioner / Pandian directly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.If the Muthusamy / Accused No.1 fails to pay this compensation amount, he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.If the victim is not willing to accept the compensation amount directly from the accused, the accused shall deposit the same to the credit of S.C.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai, Karut District, which can be withdrawn by the victim.The judgments passed by the Courts below are accordingly modified.11.Criminal Revision Petition No.31 of 2010 stands dismissed accordingly.Criminal Revision Petition No.731 of 2008 stands disposed of accordingly.06.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Tsghttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, Karur District.The Sessions Court, Karur3.The Assistant Sessions Court, Kulithalai, Karur District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.R.C.[MD]Nos.731 of 2008 & 31 of 2010 06.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code