IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.03.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM Crl.R.C.No.687 of 2006 Madeshwaran ...Petitioner (Appellant 1st Accused) Versus State by Sub-Inspector of Police Bhavani Police Station Crime No.209 of 2001. ...Respondent (Respondent/Complainant) Revision petition filed against the conviction Under Section 447 IPC imposing a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 324 IPC (2 Counts) imposing fine of Rs.2000/- each in the Judgment dated 09.01.2006 made in C.A.No.301 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode confirming the conviction imposed in the Judgment dated 19.07.2005 made in C.C.No.74 of 2002, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj Government Advocate (Criminal Side) JUDGMENT The revision petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 447 and 324 IPC and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (each counts) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 447 IPC and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (each counts) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Against this conviction and sentence, the present revision has been preferred. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2001 at about 11.45 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused had come to the house of P.W.1 and had entered into the house and assaulted with him knife and another person by name Senthil who is the neighbour was also assaulted by the second accused in this case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the injured in this case by name Senthil has not been examined in this case and there is a delay of fourteen hours in preferring the complaint. The injury sustained by P.W.1 is only simple injury and the Doctor also admitted in the cross examination that the injury said to have been caused on P.W.1 could not have been caused by knife. The learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel further submitted that though six persons are named in the FIR, only two have been convicted by the trial court and the other accused have been acquitted. Further it is stated before the Doctor by P.W.1 that about 22 persons were involved in the occurrence. 4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the night hours, while the petitioner going on the road in his two wheeler caused the death of a Cat of P.W.1, and when it was questioned by P.W.1, the quarrel arose. 5. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that though the accused along with 24 persons have taken part in the occurrence, the Police secured only six persons and filed a final report against them. 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the evidence and other records. 7. The occurrence said to have taken place on 22.05.2001 at 11.45p.m, but the Police recorded the First Information Report on the next day at 3.30p.m.,. There is no explanation to the delay with regard to the First Information Report from P.W.1. Apart from that, it is the definite case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1 that the first accused was holding a knife and caused the injury on the hands of P.W.1. The Doctor who examined P.W.1 had admitted during the cross examination that the injury caused on P.W.1 is not possible by a knife. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by medical evidence. In view of the fact that there is delay in recording the First Information Report and the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of the victim, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. 8. This criminal revision petition is allowed. The fine amount if any paid, shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ksr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. 3. Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavani Police station. 5. The Public Posecutor, Highcourt, Madras 1 cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate SR.No.14035 BV (CO) MMP 31.3.08 Crl.R.C.No.687 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/