- (1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 13.8.2003 in S.C. No. 127 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in and by which the learned District Judge found that the accused were found not guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The present Revision Case is filed by Thiru. Ganasekaran, P.W.1, brother of the deceased Kumaran @ Kumaravel under following grounds: 1. The evidence of P.W.1 is natural and his availability at the time of occurrence is not doubtful. His evidence is trustworthy and reliable. 2. Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased told to P.W.2 about the assailant, who attacked him. The statement is falling under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and this piece of evidence is enough to convict the accused. The said statement is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 9. 3. Though P.Ws 3 and 4 treated as hostile, any portion of evidence supportive to the prosecution case should have been taken note of as corroborative to the prosecution case as that piece of evidence admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. 4. There is no vital contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. P.W.2 in fact deposed that the deceased was alive till saying who caused injuries to him. 5. P.W.2 categorically deposed that he told to the Medical Officer, namely, P.W.8, who have attacked the deceased and what is the reason for the injuries to the deceased. The mere negligence on the part of P.W.8 not referring the same either in the medical report or in his evidence will not vitiate the trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. Even if there is any conflict evidence between the ocular evidence and the medical report, the court should have considered the evidence of ocular witness only. 7. P.W.1, being the village man was sleeping at the temple at the time of occurrence without any shirt, cannot be doubted his presence at the time of occurrence. 8. There is no delay in registering the F.I.R. and sending the same to the Magistrate. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 is reliable one. He is the author of Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, it has been clearly stated the names of the assailants and their overt act. 10. The medical evidence in fact supportive to the prosecution case. 11. The confession statement of A.1 leading to recovery of the weapons M.Os 1 and 2 were used for the commission of the offence. The Chemical report reveals that the blood spread in M.O.1 is the blood of the deceased. This chemical report corroborate the prosecution case. 12. P.Ws 1, 2,5 and 6 are the occurrence witnesses. They were supporting the prosecution case. There is no major contradiction in between them. 13. The evidence of the auto driver is supportive to the prosecution case. He is a independent witness. He has stated that he took the deceased to the hospital along with P.Ws 1 and 2. 14. The motive aspect for the occurrence has been proved. There is no denial of P.W.13 that P.W.1 attended the ceremony and that being so, the Court should not have taken the view that P.W.1 did not attend the ceremony of P.W.13. 15. The trial Court failed to note the material evidence available on record leading to the miscarriage of justice and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
(2.) Heard Mr. G. Marimuthu, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, Mr. Micaal Bharathi, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Rajendran, learned Counsel for the third respondent.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/P.W.1 reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds and submitted that the judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused is erroneous and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.;