- (1.)TIRUPATTUR and to set aside the same.)This Criminal Revision case has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2005 pronounced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tiruppatur, Vellore District in S.C.No.44/2005.
(2.)THE respondents 2 and 3 herein stood charged and were prosecuted for an offence under Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC before the court below in S.C.No.44/2005. After trial, both were found not guilty and were acquitted of the said offence. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court, one of the injured persons who was examined as P.W.4, has preferred this Criminal Revision Case under Section 401 Cr.P.C. on various grounds set out in the Grounds of Revision.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:i) The wife of the second respondent (wife of the first accused) was the panchayat president of Mittur Panchayat. But actually the second respondent Sivaji was acting as the President of the said Panchayat. There was a demand for a tap connection for providing water to the veterinary hospital at Mittur. The second respondent Sivaji was not allowing the same to be done. P.W.4-Thiagarajan who was an elected ward member gave the water connection and provided a water tap to the veterinary hospital at Mittur on 15.08.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) were dismantling the said water connection on 16.08.2004, at about 6.00 a.m. P.W.1 and P.W.4, who were proceeding towards Mittur from Vilankuppam for taking tea, came across the said act on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 and questioned the propriety of the same. Immediately the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) with a common intention of causing death to P.W.4-Thiagarajan, attacked P.W.4 and P.W.1-Srinivasan. P.W.4-Thiagarajan was attacked by Sivaji (second respondent/A1) on his forehead with a knife, whereas Kaliappan (3rd respondent/A2) attacked P.W.4 with an iron rod on his right hand. P.W.4-Thiagarajan, after receiving the said injuries fell unconscious and was taken to P.W.8-Singaravelan, a medical practitioner, who gave first aid treatment and sent him to Government Hospital, Tiruppattur. P.W.2-Dr.T.P.Mani treated him at Government Hospital, Tiruppattur and then referred him to Government Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. P.W.9-Dhandapani, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karisalampatti police station got the intimation - Ex.P6 from Tiruppattur Government Hospital and went to the said hospital for recording to the statement of P.W.4-Thiagarajan. As P.W.4-Thiagarajan was not in a position to give any statement, statement of P.W.1-Srinivasan marked as Ex.P1 was recorded by him. Based on Ex.P1 he prepared Ex.P5-First Information Report in the printed format and registered a case in Cr.No.324/2004 for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. ii) The respondents 2 and 3 (accused 1 and 2) were also taking treatment in the very same hospital for the injuries sustained by them. Hence P.W.9 recorded the statement of the second respondent herein (Sivaji) marked as Ex.P7, prepared Ex.P8-first information report in the printed format and registered a case in Cr.No.325/2004 on the file of the very same police station for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. iii) Both the cases were investigated by P. W.10-Mohammed Balullah, the then Inspector of Police, Kandili circle. At the conclusion of investigation, he submitted a final report alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the respondents 2 and 3 herein in Cr.No.324/2004 and referring Cr.NO.325/2004 as mistake of fact.

The learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Tiruppattur took the final report on file as PRC No.17/2004 and committed the case for trial following the procedure prescribed therefor. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.44/2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore District. The same was made over to the trial court viz. the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Thiruppattur for disposal according to law. The trial court framed a charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the respondents 2 and 3 herein (A1 and A2) and tried the case as the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty.

(3.)AS many as 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 in order to prove the prosecution case. M.O.1 to 3 were also produced. The respondents 2 and 3/accused 1 and 2 were also examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Two documents were marked as Ex.D1 and D2 on the side of the accused. At the conclusion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial judge considered the evidence brought before it and upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused 1 and 2 giving the benefit of doubt, by its judgment dated 10.08.2005.
Challenging the legality and correctness of the above said judgment of acquittal of the trial court, P.W.4-Thiagarajan (the injured) has brought-forth this criminal revision case on various grounds set out in the grounds of criminal revision case.