- (1.) THE revision petitioners are A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.102 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. Totally there are five accused in the case. THE learned Magistrate convicted the first accused for offences under Section 148 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under each offences. A-2 to A-5 were convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and each were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. THE second accused was also convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and A-3 to A-5 were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and each were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Against the said conviction and sentence, A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 alone preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi.
(2.) THE appellate Court modified the conviction and sentence by convicting A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment; convicting A-1 and A-2 under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo four months simple imprisonment; and convicting A-5 under Section 323 I.P.C. and directing her to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners, who are A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 have preferred this revision petition. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.1's sister-in-law was married to the second accused and as the second accused divorced her, there was enmity between the accused party and prosecution party. On the date of occurrence, P.W.1 was going in a funeral procession and all the accused came there and the first accused attacked him with a koduval on his right shoulder, the second accused attacked him on the right hand with a stick, the third accused attacked him on his left shoulder with a stick, the fourth accused attacked him on the right thigh with a stone and the fifth accused beat him on left cheek. P.W.1 was taken to the hospital by his son, P.W.2 and the police came to the hospital and received the complaint, Ex.P.1, from him. P.W.8, Inspector of Police, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.340 of 1996 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323 I.P.C. and prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex.P.7. P.W.8 took up investigation and examined the witnesses and after completing investigation, laid the final report.
(3.) THE trial Court and the appellate Court, after considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that though P.W.1 had stated in his evidence that only his son had written the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.2 had not stated so in his evidence. He further submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral evidence of P.W.1. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the appellate Court, though had no power to convict the accused for a graver offence, altered the conviction of the first and second accused to an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. without any reason and though the first accused alone was convicted under Section 148 I.P.C., the appellate Court convicted A-2, A-4 and A-5 also under Section 148 I.P.C.;