The case of the prosecution is as follows:(i) On 11.12.1996 at about 11.30 a.m., while P.W.2, the victim Manickam, a postman, was walking on the main road at Thondapadi Village, A.1 and A.2 along with other other co-accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons.They attacked P.W.2 with Aruvals and severed both hands.A.4 and A.6 facilitated A.1 and A.2 doing so.(ii) P.W.1, who is the sister of P.W.2, the victim, and an eye witness, had rushed to the Village Administrative Officer and narrated the occurrence.On the basis of Ex.P.1, complaint, Ex.P.15, the First Information Report was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.1 is the complainant; P.W.2 is the injured and P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.2 after the occurrence and issued Ex.P.3, Wound Certificate.P.W.9, the Inspector of Police had conducted investigation and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.W.9 has arrested A.1 and A.2 and recorded their confession statements Exs.On the basis of the confession statements, he recovered M.O.1 and M.O.2 weapons used by A.1 and A.2 respectively in the occurrence.He has also recovered M.O.4 and M.O.5 blood stained sand and blood stained wooden logs of Munna Tree under Ex.The admissible portion of the confession statement of A.1 is Ex.P.17 and that of A.2 is Ex.A.3 and A.5 were absconding.The investigating officer had filed charge sheet.The case duly was committed for trial.When questioned, the accused pleaded innocence.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined.P.1 to P.18 were exhibited and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.P.Ws.1 and 3, according to the prosecution, are ocular witnesses.P.W.2 is the injured witness.ajr/sjCrl.R.C.No.1073 of 201017.12.2014A case was registered against the petitioner and five others for the offences under sections 148, 302 and 342 IPC in Crime No.311 of 1996 on the file of the respondent.Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing the commission of offences.On questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C, A.1 took the plea of private defence and A.2 the defence of alibi.Other accused have denied their complicity.On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined.Learned trial Judge acquitted A3 and A5 and convicted other accused and passed sentence as follows:Accused No.Conviction under SectionSentenceA1148 IPCOne year SI342 IPCOne year SI307 IPCFive years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- I/D six months R.I.A2148 IPCOne year SI342 IPCOne year SI307 IPCFive years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- I/D six months R.I.A4147 IPCSix Months SI342 IPCOne Year SI307 r/w 114 IPCThree Years RI and fine of Rs.500/- I/D three months R.I.A6147 IPCSix Months SI342 IPCOne Year SI307 r/w 114 IPCThree Years RI and fine of Rs.500/- I/D three months R.I.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, all the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.11 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.The appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the other accused, convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 337 I.P.C., sentenced him to Five Years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.8. P.W.2, injured moved Criminal Revision Nos.306 and 307 of 2013 challenging the judgment of acquittal as regards the other accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence as regards this petitioner, first accused.This Court under order dated 23.10.2007 was pleased to dismiss Criminal Revision No.306 of 2013, challenging the order of acquittal of other accused.However, in Criminal Revision No.307 of 2013, this Court took the view that the offence under Section 326 IPC stood attracted and hence remitted the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration.Thereupon the matter was reheard by the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The petitioner having paid the fine has filed this Revision.On general considerations, this Court would suspect the veracity of the prosecution case.The occurrence, wherein both arms of P.W.2 were cut off, in an attack by six persons, is said to have taken place at 11.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 3, sister and brother of P.W.2, who allegedly were witnesses to the occurrence have chosen to inform the Village Administrative Officer only at 5 p.m on such date and thereafter FIR came to be registered.The explanation offered for the delay is that the Village Administrative Officer was at a different Village and hence they could reach him only at 5 p.m. It is most unlikely that a person who had suffered the loss of two arms at 11.30 a.m. would have been lying unattended till 5 p.m, without having lost his life.Therefore, there is prima facie reason to think that in the least, the time of the occurrence has been shifted.While the other accused in the case stand acquitted, such avenue to this petitioner has been closed, owing to the fact that he has chosen to examine himself as defence witness and admitted the commission of the offence.He had stated that P.W.2, facing prosecution for the offences under sections 448 and 354 IPC, he having misbehaved with the first daughter of the petitioner, had sought to misbehave with the second daughter and towards preventing such wrong, he had exercised the right of private defence.That two arms of P.W.2 had been totally chopped off is an indication that the prosecution's original case of involvement of several persons was more likely.In the face of evidence, tendered by petitioner as D.W.1, we are constrained to confirm the finding of the lower appellate court.However, it is seen that 18 years have passed since the date of occurrence.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 70 years and suffers from many health related problems.This Court was of the view that the victim/P.W.2 may be questioned as to whether he was willing to accept the payment of compensation.The same subsequently was closed on 24.11.2014, since he could not be traced.It is seen that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of six months.In the circumstances, substantive sentence of imprisonment shall be restricted to the period already undergone by the petitioner.The petitioner shall be now required to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only), within a period of two months of receipt of this order, in default undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as above.17.12.2014Index:yes/noInternet:yes/noajr/sjToThe Inspector of PoliceKaikalathur Police StationPerambalur District C.T.SELVAM, J.

Cited provisions: Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code