- (1.)PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track Court-II), Coimbatore in C.A.No,366 of 2006 confirming the judgment dated 9.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi, in C.C.No,61 of 2001.) Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track Court-II), Coimbatore in C.A.No,366 of 2006 confirming the judgment dated 9.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Pollachi, in C.C.No,61 of 2001, this revision case is focussed.
(2.)THE epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:-
(a) THE police laid the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Since the accused contested the matter, trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined Exs.P1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. On the accused side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the following conviction and imposed the following sentence. TABLE As against which, appeal C.A.No,366 of 2006 was filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court No,2), Coimbatore, in Crl.A.No,366 of 2006, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

Challenging and impugned the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision case is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- Even though the medical records would speak to the effect that even earlier to the registration of FIR treatment was taken, both the Courts below did not give due importance to that fact in giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. The place of occurrence has not been clearly established by the prosecution, as there are were discrepancies in the evidence. As such, without applying the evidence, both the Courts below disposed of the matter, warranting interference by this Court.

The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity in applying the law in scanning and scrutinising the evidence and ultimately in arriving at the conclusion by both the Courts below.

(3.)DESPITE opportunities having been given, none represented the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner also was called absent.
The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would advance his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no irregularity or impropriety on the part of both the Courts below in appreciating the evidence, recording the conviction and imposing the sentence.