HEMANTH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.156 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. Totally there were three accused. THE appellants have been convicted under Sections 326 ad 341 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I for one month for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C and to undergo R.I for one month for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C.m THE sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. THE third accused has been acquitted. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 are before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: i) THE appellants are the sons of the third accused (since acquitted). THEre was some dispute between the family of the accused and the prosecution party in respect of a property. Indisputably, there was a civil suit also pending. THEre was an attempt made by advocates for either side to compromise the said civil dispute. But the same could not fructify. THEreafter, on 22.04.200 at about 7.30 pm. P.W.1 and P.W.3 were standing in front of the house of P.W.1. At that time, all the three accused emerged and the first accused shouted that so long as P.W.1 was alive, they could not succeed in the civil dispute. With such shouting, A.1 attempted to attack P.W.1 with Aruval, which he was holding. P.W.1 tried to escape. At that time, P.W.2, who came rushing to the place of occurrence, attempted to prevent A.1 from cutting P.W.1. But A.1 cut P.W.2 on his left wrist. THE second accused took out an Aruval and attempted to cut P.W.1 on his head. P.W.1, warded off with his left hand. THErefore, the cut fell on his left wrist. He sustained injury. THEn the people who were present at the scene of occurrence raised alarm. A.1 and A.2 cut P.Ws 1 and 2 as stated above at the instigation of A.3. After the alarm raised by others, A.1 and A.3 disappeared from the place of occurrence. THEreafter, P.W.s.1 and 2 were taken to a private hospital known as Suriya Hospital by one Muthu. THEy were admitted as in patient in the said Hospital. While taking treatment, at about 8.45 p.m on receiving information from the hospital, P.W.9, Inspector of Police attached to Virugambakkam police Station came to the spot and recorded the statement of P.W1. Based on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.420 of 2000 under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. In the hospital, P.W.8, Dr.Vekatramanan examined P.Ws 1 and 2 at 8.00 p.m on 22.04.2000 . He was told by both the injured that they were attacked by known persons with knife. On examination, he found that the tendon at the left wrist of P.W.1 was cut and there was also fracture of bone. He conducted surgery on P.W.1 to correct the same. P.W.1 under went treatment as in patient for four days. According to P.W.8, Dr.Venkataramanan, the injuries sustained by P.W.1 were grievous. He issued Ex.P.4, the wound certificate. On the same day, when he examined P.W.2, Ravi, he found a cut injury on the left wrist and also the tendon was found cut. He was treated as in patient for four days. According to him, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 is also grievous. He issued Ex.P.5, the wound certificate. ii) Coming back to the investigation, P.W.9 proceeded to the place of occurrence at about 10.15 p.m. He prepared the observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ramalingam and also he prepared a sketch. He examined P.Ws 3, to 6 and recorded their statements. P.Ws 3 to 6 were also eye witnesses to the occurrence. He proceeded to the hospital and recovered the blood stained clothes worn by P.Ws.1 and 2 under Mahazar. On 23.04.2000, he arrested the accused near Sinmaya Nagar Bridge. THE first accused gave a confession voluntarily and P.W.9 recorded the same in the presence of two witnesses. Based on the said confession, he took the police and witnesses to his house and produced M.os.1 and 2, the weapons said to have been used in the occurrence. M.O.1 was the Aruval used by A.1 and M.O.2 was the one used by A.2. THEn he examined P.W.8 Doctor and collected medical records. THEreafter, he handed over the investigation to P.W.10, as he was transferred. On perusing the records, P.W.10 laid charge sheet for offences under Sections 341, 307, and 506 (ii) I.P.C r/w 109 and 34 I.P.C. iii) Based on the above materials, the learned Sessions Judge framed as many as 4 charges. THE first charge is under Section 341 I.P.C against all the three accused. THE second charge is under Section 307 I.P.C against A.1 and A.2. THE third charge is under Section 307 r/w 109 I.P.C against the third accused and the fourth charge is under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C against all the three accused. Since the accused denied the charges, they were put on trial. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as ten witnesses have been examined and 13 documents were exhibited. Mos.1 to 4 were marked. iv. When the accused were questioned in respect of the incriminating evidence, they denied the same. On their side, they did not examine any defence witness but they have marked as many as 11 documents as Exs.D1 to D.11. v. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court acquitted the third accused of all the charges and found the accused 1 and 2 guilty of offences under Sections 326 and 341 alone. THE appellants are aggrieved by the same and that is how, they are now before this Court with this appeal.

(3.) NEXTLY, the learned counsel would submit that there is material contradiction in respect of the weapon said to have been used by these accused. According to him, in the First Information Report, it has been stated that these two accused pulled out knife from their waist, which they were hiding to attack P.Ws 1 and 2. But the learned counsel would point out that P.Ws 1 and 2, in their evidence have stated that they were attacked by Aruval and that is how M.Os 1 and 2 which are Aruvals have been exhibited in evidence. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has not come forward with truth.