This Criminal Revision is preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No.88 of 2007, dated 26.12.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.108 of 2004, dated 05.06.2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sattankulam.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has pulled the hair of the complainant / P.W.1 by uttering filthy words and attacked her with hands on her face and due to which, her two teeth were fallen down and caused grievous injuries and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b) &
325 of IPC., and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act.
3. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 during evidence to prove the charges and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The complainant / injured is examined as P.W.1; P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1; P.W.3 is the close relative of P.W.2 and also the accused; P.W.4 is examined as an eyewitness and he turned hostile during evidence stating that he has not seen the occurrence; P.W.5 is the minor son of P.Ws.1 & 2 and examined as eyewitness, but his evidence is in contra to the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P4, Rough Plan regarding the occurrence place and also the fact of fallen down of two teeth while the complainant said to have attacked by the accused. P.W.6 is the close relative of P.W.2 and also the accused and as per his evidence, he has not seen the occurrence, but he has brought the injured with others to the Government Hospital at Sattankulam and thereafter, to the Highground Government Hospital at Tirunelveli, for further treatment. P.W.7 is examined as Mahazar Witness, who is declared as hostile during his evidence. Hence, P.W.8 is examined to prove Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar; P.W.9 is the Head Constable of Thattarmadam Police Station and he received Ex.P1 / Complaint on 08.03.2004 from the injured / P.W.1 while she was under treatment in the Highground Government Hospital at Tirunelveli and Registered Ex.P4 / FIR on the same day against the accused. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan in the presence of the witnesses and recorded the statement under
Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., from the witnesses and also arrested the accused on 08.03.2004 and remanded him.
4. P.W.10 / Doctor, working in Government Hospital, at Sattankulam and on 07.03.2004, who treated the injured at first instance and issued Ex.P6 / wound certificate. He deposed that the patient was unconscious and found blood strain over the lips and jaws, which are clenched and loss of incisor tooth in the right side and loosening of second incisor tooth next to the above and also contusion over both cheeks and no injuries relating to the loosening tooth, inside the lip. P.W.11 / Inspector of Police, examined P.Ws.10 & 12 and completed the investigation and laid the final report against the accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court at Sattankulam. P.W.12 is the another Government Doctor, working in Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli, who treated the injured for her broken teeth deposed that x-ray was taken on lower jaw of the injured and gave Ex.P7 report. P.Ws.13 & 14, who were examined as eyewitnesses and declared as hostile during their evidence, since they have stated that they have not seen the occurrence. P.W.2 is the husband of the injured / P.W.1 has also admitted that he has not witnessed the occurrence and he is a hearsay witness. P.W.1 / injured alone has spoken about the occurrence. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution have not spoken about the occurrence and they have not witnessed the occurrence.
5.P.Ws.1, 2 & 9 have admitted during their evidence that there is no cordial terms between the complainant's family and accused family. Hence, previous motive between the complainant and the accused is admitted, though such motive is not stated in the complaint and also in the final report. Motive is the double edged weapon, it may in favour of the complainant or accused. In this case, the reason for such motive is not spoken by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, P.Ws.1 & 2 admitted that they have no cordial terms with the accused, who resides in the opposite house of the complainant. P.W.1 has deposed during her evidence that the accused has attacked with his hands on her mouth and due to that 2 teeth fallen down in the occurrence.
6. As per Ex.P1 / Complaint, P.W.1 has stated that the accused attacked with his hands on her back and face and at that time, "if gy;ypy; ,oj;J Vw;fdnt ehd; fl;oapUe;j Kd; thpir gy;ypy; xd;Wk,; mnjhL nrh;e;j ,d;bdhU gs;Sk; cile;J tpGe;J thapypUe;J ,uj;jk; te;jJ". She has further stated that Ponnuthai / P.W4; Sundar/P.W3 and Isakiemuthu / P.W.14 shouted and separated them during the occurrence. The above version is not stated by the complainant, while she was examined as P.W.1 in this case. She has not stated in her complaint that she became unconscious, she was proceeding towards her husband, after the occurrence, as deposed during her evidence.
7. On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution, there is no other eyewitness seeing the occurrence, except the evidence of P.W.1 / injured. There are two versions regarding the fact of falling of teeth from the mouth of P.W.1 during the occurrence. P.W.1 deposed that 2 teeth fallen down in the occurrence because of the attack by the accused. In Ex.P6 / Accident Register it has been stated that (1) Jaws Clenched (2) Loss of incisor tooth in the right side (3) loosening of 2nd incisor tooth next to above. P.W.10 Doctor deposed that front teeth is found missing in the right side and next to the above is found in the loosening stage. No tooth is found in the occurrence place, as per Ex.P.3 / Observation Mahazar. Hence, the medical evidence produced by the prosecution is not supporting the evidence of the injured witness. The alleged x-rays not produced by the prosecution in the evidence of the concerned doctor. The alleged occurrence stated by P.W.1/ injured is not corroborated by the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution, though P.W.1 get injury. The nature of injuries caused differs from the evidence of P.W.1 and medical evidence.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the medical evidence is not supporting the evidence of P.W.1 / injured in respect of two teeth fallen down in the occurrence place and also the alleged occurrence is not proved by the prosecution, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Revision. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No.88 of 2007, dated 26.12.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Tuticorin, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.108 of 2004, dated 05.06.2007, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sattankulam, is set aside. The Revision Petitioner / accused is acquitted from the charge under
Section 325 IPC also. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount of Rs.1000/- paid by the accused, on his application. The bail bond executed by the accused also stands cancelled.
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Tuticorin,
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sattankulam.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Tuticorin District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. The Record Keeper, Criminal Record Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
.