Judgment :- In Sessions Case No. 52 of 1990, on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the petitioner Tamilselvant was charged and tried for the offences under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months, under each count, directing the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner, challenging this conviction and sentence filed an appeal in C.A. No. 32 of 1991, on the file of principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who ultimately by his Judgment dated 8-1-1992, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and confirmed the conviction for the offences under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. and modified the sentence of R.I. for three years into one of R.I. for one year, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revision. 2. The prosecution case is as follows :- The petitioner was working in SICA Breweries at Pondicherry. P.W. 1, the victim in this case, N. I. Khan, was also working in the same concern as Personal Officer. On the basis of certain charges, P.W. 1, as a Personal Officer, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner/accused. Aggrieved over this, 29-4-1990 at about 8.00 P.M., the petitioner went to the house of P.W. 1. At that time, P.W. 1 and his daughter P.W. 3 were sitting in the car. P.W. 1 sitting in the driver seat was trying to start the car to go out. On seeing this, the petitioner who carried M.O. 2 bag with him rushed towards the car and took out O.M. 1 aruval from M.O. 2 bag and dealt a cut on the right forearm near the right elbow of P.W. 1. Immediately, P.W. 1 got down from the car, after opening the car and ran into his house. The petitioner/accused chased him. P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1, who was inside the house, on seeing this, came front and blocked his way, preventing the petitioner/accused from entering into her house. P.W. 3, the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2 came near the accused and caught hold of his hands. The petitioner/accused chased him. P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1, who was inside the house, on seeing this, came front and blocked his way, preventing the petitioner/accused from entering into her house. P.W. 3, the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2 came near the accused and caught hold of his hands. On hearing the hue and cry, P.W. 5 who was loading some soda bottles inside the house of P.W. 1, came and tried to catch the accused. However, the petitioner wriggled out and ran away. But, P.W. 5 chased him upto Balaji theatre and caught him. Then, he took the accused to P.W. 9, Head Constable attached to Grand-Bazar Police Station. From there, he was taken to D-Nagar Police Station, the jurisdiction police. 3. In the mean time, P.W. 1, who sustained a bleeding injury on his right forearm, was taken to the hospital by P.W. 4. From the Hospital, intimation was sent to D. Nagar Police Station P.W. 11, Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the hospital and obtained the complaint Ex. P1. He recovered the blood-stained clothes M.Os. 8 and 9 from P.W. 1. A case was registered in Cr. No. 158 of 1990 for an offence under Section 324, I.P.C. At that point of time, P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 brought the accused and produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police, D-Nagar Police Station. M.O. 1, Aruval, M.O. 2 Bag, M.O. 3-two fifty rupee currency notes, M.O. 4-citizen watch, M.O. 5-shirt and M.O. 6 broken glass pieces were seized from him. Then, P.W. 11, after investigation, on perusing the medical certificate and on examining the Doctor and other witnesses filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C., and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. The trial Court, during the course of trial examined 11 witnesses and through whom 11 exhibits and 9 M.Os. were marked on the side of prosecution. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty, and convicted and sentenced him for the offences as referred to above. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, the appellate Court while confirming the conviction under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C., reduced the sentence from 3 years R.I. to one year R.I. However, the appellate Court found the accused/petitioner not guilty in respect of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, the appellate Court while confirming the conviction under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C., reduced the sentence from 3 years R.I. to one year R.I. However, the appellate Court found the accused/petitioner not guilty in respect of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved over this Judgment, the present revision has been resorted to in this Court, by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Masilamani, learned senior counsel representing Mr. T. P. Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating his submissions, questioning the validity of the findings of both the appellate Court as well as the trial Court, took me through the Judgment and entire evidence, and contended that the prosecution case could not be believed, due to the various infirmities found in the records. His submissions could be summarised as follows :-(i) In the complaint Ex. P1, given by P.W. 1, it is stated that he was attacked by the accused with M.O. 1 aruval and the cut was iflicted on his right-forearm, when he was sitting in the driver seat of the car and then the accused ran away. But in the evidence, a different story has been brought out, as if P.W. 1 while he was in the process of escaping from the further attack, by entering into his house, the accused chased him and trespassed into the house in order to make a further attempt on his life, but P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1 blocked his way and P.Ws. 3 and 5 caught hold of him, and so, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 could not be believed. (ii) An earlier information, according to the prosecution, was given to police control room, No. 100 (police emergency) from the hospital. But this information was not recorded and the entries to that effect has also not been produced. Moreover, even prior to the registration of the F.I.R., after receiving the complaint Ex. P1 from P.W. 1 by P.W. 11, P.W. 5 went to Grand-Bazar Police Station and met P.W. 9, Head Constable. But the statement given to the said Head Constable was not produced before the Court. As also, the Traffic Constable, who helped P.W. 5, in taking the accused to Grant-Bazaar Police Station was not examined before the Court. P1 from P.W. 1 by P.W. 11, P.W. 5 went to Grand-Bazar Police Station and met P.W. 9, Head Constable. But the statement given to the said Head Constable was not produced before the Court. As also, the Traffic Constable, who helped P.W. 5, in taking the accused to Grant-Bazaar Police Station was not examined before the Court. (iii) In any event, the petitioner could not be convicted for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C., inasmuch as even according to Ex. P1, the earlier document, the accused by means of M.O. 1 aruval inflicted a cut on the hand of P.W. 1, and as such, he could at the most be convicted for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. (iv) The final submission would be that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the above said offences proved, the sentence could be reduced to the period already undergone, viz. 15 days, for the reason that after this incident he married a woman and got two children, he finished his B.Com., degree and presently working in a private concern. 6. Per contra, Mr. Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 has been properly appreciated and considered by both the Courts below, and so the petitioner could not argue with regard to the factual aspects in this revision, that with reference to the incident, the evidence of P.W. 1 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by the Doctor, that the act of the accused is more heinous, since he tried to do away with the officer of the company, who initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and that since the offences, viz., the high handed acts of the accused were proved beyond doubt, the petitioner does not deserve for any sympathy, warranting reduction of sentence. 7. As correctly pointed out by Mr. Gopalakrishnan, this Court need not go into the factual aspects, which as been elaborately dealt with by both the Courts below. But it the same time, it is to be pointed out, that one important aspect has been overlooked by the Courts below in this case. A thorough reading of Ex. 7. As correctly pointed out by Mr. Gopalakrishnan, this Court need not go into the factual aspects, which as been elaborately dealt with by both the Courts below. But it the same time, it is to be pointed out, that one important aspect has been overlooked by the Courts below in this case. A thorough reading of Ex. P1 complaint, an earlier document, which has been given P.W. 1, would reveal that while P.W. 1 was sitting in his car parked in front of his house at about 8.00 p.m., and trying to start the same, suddenly the accused appeared there and hit with an aruval on the right hand near the elbow of P.W. 1, which he kept at the door of the car, while the left hand was at the steering, that before the accused could make another attack, he got down from the car, that P.W. 5, Kumar, his family friend ran towards the accused to catch him, but the accused ran away, and that thereafter both P.W. 5 and the complainant chased him. But P.Ws. 2 and 3, in their evidence would say that after the complainant received a cut on his right hand rushed to his house, but the accused chased him and trespassed into the house, in order to make a further attack and at that point of time, P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1 stopped him and P.Ws. 3 and 5 caught hold of the accused. If this portion of evidence is believed, that the conclusion would be that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are correct in convicting the accused for offences under Sections 452 (trespass) and 307 (attempt to murder) I.P.C. But, since P.W. 1 in his complaint Ex. P1 does not refer about the second portion of the occurrence, then this Court is to find out as to what was the actual offence committed by the accused, on the basis of the earliest materials found available in this case. 8. In Ex. P1, P.W. 1 has so specifically stated, that the accused who suddenly appeared there, hit him with aruval (M.O. 1) on his right hand near the elbow, and then P.W. 1 got down from the car. There is no mentioning in the complaint Ex. 8. In Ex. P1, P.W. 1 has so specifically stated, that the accused who suddenly appeared there, hit him with aruval (M.O. 1) on his right hand near the elbow, and then P.W. 1 got down from the car. There is no mentioning in the complaint Ex. P1, that subsequent to the first attack made on his right hand, the accused inflicted or attempted to inflict another cut on any vital part of his body. In that context, this Court has to consider the intention of the accused while he was inflicting injury on the right hand of P.W. 1. 9. Though P.Ws. 2 and 3 would speak about the trespass of the accused into their house, they did not say that the accused attempted to attack P.Ws. 2 & amp; 3, who blocked his way, in order to prevent him from attacking P.W. 1 further. Even in the evidence of P.W. 1. he simply stated that the accused inflicted a cut injury on his right hand near the elbow. According to P.W. 7, Doctor Karun Agrawal, who treated P.W. 1 as in-patient from 29-4-1990 to 17-5-1990, the injury sustained by P.W. 1, being a fracture of radius, a nerve injury on posterior intravenous nerve, was a grievous injury. He also deposed that the opined that the injury was grievous on examining the X-rays taken on P.W. 1. So, in the light of the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 and the Doctor P.W. 7, with other materials, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that the accused had intended to cause only a grievous hurt and it could not be said that he had the intention of causing the death of P.W. 1, P.W. 7, Doctor has also not deposed that the injuries inflicted on the right hand of P.W. 1 would endanger to his life. Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that the offence committed by the petitioner would not come under Section 307, I.P.C., but it would only fall under Section 326, I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 307, I.P.C., are set aside, instead he is convicted for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. 10. Therefore, I am of the clear opinion that the offence committed by the petitioner would not come under Section 307, I.P.C., but it would only fall under Section 326, I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 307, I.P.C., are set aside, instead he is convicted for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. 10. Regarding the offence under S. 452, I.P.C., as discussed earlier, there was no attempt made by the accused to attack P.W. 1 again, after the infliction of the first cut, or to commit any offence inside the house of P.W. 1, even according to P.Ws. 2 and 3 also. Moreover, the second part of the occurrence as deposed by P.Ws. 2 and 3 has not been mentioned in Ex. P1 complaint. Since there is variation in between the complaint Ex. P1 and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, with reference to the 'trespass', I deem it fit to acquit the petitioner in respect of the charge framed under S. 452, I.P.C. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the 2petitioner under S. 452, I.P.C., are also set aside. 11. Regarding the question of sentence, learned senior counsel Mr. Masilamani, has again reiterated the various circumstances as referred to earlier. However, this is strongly opposed by Mr. Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry by stating that P.W. 1; as a personal officer did his duty of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the accused, but instead of facing the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and establishing his innocence, the accused took the law into his own hands and came to the house of P.W. 1 and attacked him with aruval, and so, this high handed act of the accused, being a serious one, should not be viewed lightly. Of course, the petitioner is now aged about 35 years and married a woman subsequent to this incident and has got two daughters and is working in a private firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having commenced a new life, if sent to jail, it would have a great impact and there would be a serious set back to his family. However, while considering the manner in which the attack so made in front of the house of P.W. 1, this Court feels that this being a henious crime should be properly dealt with. However, while considering the manner in which the attack so made in front of the house of P.W. 1, this Court feels that this being a henious crime should be properly dealt with. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, I feel that interest of justice would be met by imposing a fine of Rs. 15, 000/- for the offence under S. 326, I.P.C. and accordingly I impose the same. This fine amount of Rs. 15, 000/- shall be deposited in the lower Court within one month from the date of this order and this fine amount has to be converted into compensation and the same has to be paid to P.W. 1In the event of default, the petitioner will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. After, intimation to P.W. 1, the trial Court is directed to pay the fine amount as compensation to P.W. 1 without any delay. 12. With the above modification, this revision is partly allowed.