ORDER 1. The criminal revision has been preferred challenging the judgment, dated 15.3.2010 made in C.A. No. 69 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Madurai, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 11.8.2009 made in S.C. No. 507 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. It is seen that the revision petitioner/sole accused was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai, under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month R.I, under Section 307 IPC, 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further period of 6 months RI and under Section 506(ii) IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and as per Section 235(2) IPC, the sentence were ordered to run concurrently. 3. On appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. II, Madurai, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, by its judgment, dated 11.8.2009, aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the prosecution has put forth motive, which is doubtful, since as per the alleged motive, on 1.12.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., when P.W.1 Perumal was proceeding by walk after closing his bunk shop at the alleged place of occurrence in M. Kallupatty village, along with his brother-in-law, P.W.2, the revision petitioner/accused attacked him with a knife and caused various injuries and also threatened P.W.2 not to disclose anything about the said occurrence. 5. After the occurrence, the victim, P.W.1 was taken to the hospital in a serious condition and a complaint was given against the revision petitioner/accused. In the complaint, Exhibit P-1 and in the evidence, P.W.1, the victim of the occurrence has categorically stated that he was running a bunk shop nearby the TASMAC shop at M. Kallupatty village and the revision petitioner/accused was also running a small bunk shop near by his shop. Prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner/accused had been arrested by the police in connection with an alleged offence that he was selling illegally alcoholic drinks, after purchasing the same from the neighbouring TASMAC shop, after the TASMAC/Arrack shop was closed for a higher price. Prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner/accused had been arrested by the police in connection with an alleged offence that he was selling illegally alcoholic drinks, after purchasing the same from the neighbouring TASMAC shop, after the TASMAC/Arrack shop was closed for a higher price. Having suspicion against P.W.1 that P.W.1 could have given information to the police, the petitioner/accused had enmity with him and that was the motive for the occurrence. 6. As contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, there is a sole accused in the case and even in the complaint, Exhibit P-1, injured person in the occurrence has categorically stated that he was stabbed by the revision petitioner/accused using a deadly weapon, knife, M.O.1, on the vital parts of his body and his brother-in-law P.W.2 (Rajasekaran) was also present at the time of the occurrence and while he tried to prevent the occurrence, the revision petitioner/accused attempted to kill him by causing injuries and also threatened P.W.2, then ran away from the scene of occurrence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that there was inordinate delay in registering the case and sending the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and there was suppression of earlier complaint given by P.W.1. It was further contended that the prosecution has not established the motive attributed against the revision petitioner for the occurrence and even if it is true, on account of the motive attributed, the petitioner could have been implicated falsely on suspicion. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused that P.W.2, brother-in-law of the victim, P.W.1 would not have present at the time of occurrence. According to him, had he been present at the time of occurrence, he would have prevented the attack and sustained injuries, hence, the alleged presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence is doubtful. The recovery of M.O.1, knife was imaginary and fake, as there was no blood stain found in the recovered knife and further, submitted that the Courts below have failed to note that the intention or motive to commit murder was absent in the prosecution case, to attract Section 307 IPC and a mere oral threat would not attract criminal intimidation under Section 506(i) IPC and that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 8. 8. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 p.m. on 1.12.2005. As narrated by the prosecution witness, there were prior enmity between the petitioner/accused and P.W.1, since the petitioner/accused had been selling TASMAC liquor bottles privately for a higher price after the closure of the TASMAC shop and he had suspicion that he was arrested by police on the information given by P.W.1. The petitioner was later on enlarged on bail, however, he had suspicion that the information about his selling of TASMAC alcohol could have been given only by P.W.1. Due to the said prior enmity, on 1.12.2005 around 10.30 p.m., when P.W.1 along with his brother-in-law, P.W.2 returning after closing their shop, the petitioner/accused waylaid them and assaulted P.W.1 with knife on his head, stomach and also threatened P.W.2, while he intervened. After the occurrence, P.W.1, along with P.W.2 went to the police, then they were sent to Government Hospital, Usilampatti, where first aid was given. As the injuries were found serious in nature, P.W.1 was referred to Government Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. P.W.3, wife of P.W.1, after hearing about the occurrence, rushed to the police station along with P.W.1, then accompanied him to the hospitals, while P.W.2, the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Usilampatti was giving initial treatment to P.W.1. While treatment was given, P.W.1 informed him that he had been assaulted by a known person with knife and the same was recorded in the Accident Register and the copy of the same was marked as Exhibit P-6. Further treatment was given to P.W.1 at the Government Hospital, Madurai on 2.12.2005 by the Doctor, P.W.6, while so he found that the small intestine of P.W.1 was coming out on account of the injury sustained by P.W.1 and that he was in a critical condition. It is seen that Exhibit P-5, wound certificate relating to P.W.1 reveals the same, apart from the evidence adduced by the concerned Doctor. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that there is no evidence to show that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was not grievous in nature. However, the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and the wound certificate would reveal that P.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries and a part of intestine came out and he was in a critical condition, hence, sent to Government Hospital, Madurai from Usilampatti for further treatment. 10. However, the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and the wound certificate would reveal that P.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries and a part of intestine came out and he was in a critical condition, hence, sent to Government Hospital, Madurai from Usilampatti for further treatment. 10. Though the case was registered in Crime No. 152 of 2006 under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC under Exhibit P-7, subsequently the charge was altered into Section 307 IPC and an altered report was sent to the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the delay in sending the FIR to the Court is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused relied on the following decisions: 1. Prabir Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 687 (SC) 2. Arokia Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 599 (SC) 3. Kanagaraj v. State, (2011) 1 MWN (Cr.) 172 (DB) 4. Sivagami and Others v. State, (2009) 1 T.N.L.R 359 (Mad) 5. Periasamy v. State, (2008) 1 T.N.L.R 1 (Mad) (MB) 6. Murugan v. State, (2007) 1 T.N.L.R 180 (Mad) (MB) 7. Jeevarathinam v. State by Inspector of Police, (2007) 1 TNLR 170 (Mad) (MB) 12. In Kanagaraj v. State (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that unexplained inordinate delay in lodging FIR and its reaching Court assumes importance and that earlier report given by the prosecution witnesses therein could have been suppressed. 13. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the delay has been satisfactorily explained and the guilt against the petitioner/accused has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 14. As per the prosecution case, considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by P.W.1, he was sent immediately to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti for immediate treatment to save his life, where he was given first aid and then referred to the Government Hospital, Madurai. The wound certificate and the evidence of the Doctors would reveal that the injury could have been caused to P.W.1 by M.O.1 and due to the injury, intestine of P.W.1 had come came out and also got damaged on account of the same, he was in a critical condition. The wound certificate and the evidence of the Doctors would reveal that the injury could have been caused to P.W.1 by M.O.1 and due to the injury, intestine of P.W.1 had come came out and also got damaged on account of the same, he was in a critical condition. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the injured eye witness, the revision petitioner/accused had prior enmity, hence, he attacked him with knife on 1.12.2005 at about 10.30 p.m, while P.W.1 was returning after closing his shop along with P.W.2. It is seen that the case was registered on 2.12.2005 at about 8 a.m. There was only one accused and the injured, who was examined as P.W.1 was conscious at the time of giving statement for registering the FIR, though he was in a serious condition. He had informed the Doctor, who gave first aid that he was attacked by a known person with knife on 1.12.2005 at about 10.30 p.m, which is supported by medical evidence. 15. As found by the Courts below, based on the admissible portion of the confession statement, M.O.1, knife was recovered and marked as material object in this case. As per the decision referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court would be fatal, if it creates doubt in the prosecution case. In the instant case, it is seen that the case was registered at about 8 a.m in the morning of the said date and there was delay in sending the FIR. As found by the Court below, when the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, based on the available evidence, mistakes, any error committed by the respondent police or trivial contradictions in the prosecution evidence, would not be fatal to the prosecution case. 16. On the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has to consider whether there could be deliberation in changing the nature of the case or any possibility of adding any other accused. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is the sole accused and the motive for the occurrence and the prior enmity between the revision petitioner and P.W.1, the injured in the occurrence have been established by the prosecution. Merely because P.W.2 is brother-in-law of P.W.1, his evidence could not be thrown out from consideration. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is the sole accused and the motive for the occurrence and the prior enmity between the revision petitioner and P.W.1, the injured in the occurrence have been established by the prosecution. Merely because P.W.2 is brother-in-law of P.W.1, his evidence could not be thrown out from consideration. If a witness is a close relative, the evidence has to be scrutinised with care by the Court. As contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, I could find no vital contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, so as to vitiate the prosecution case. 17. In Arokia Thomas v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid ratio that when the version of eyewitnesses are highly doubtful and improbable to the fact of identification of accused that there is no other material for upholding the conviction, accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt, such benefit shall also be extended for non-appealing accused, where there is no ground for distinguishing the case from that of the appellant. 18. Here in the instant case, as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the occurrence had taken place at about 10.30 p.m on the date of occurrence and the revision petitioner/accused was a known person to the injured person. The evidence of P.W.1, injured person in the occurrence would clearly show that there was no suspicious circumstance in identifying the person, who caused grievous injuries by using knife. Had the injuries were inflicted by some other person, P.W.1 could not state anything against the revision petitioner, leaving the person who actually caused the injuries. 19. In State of Karnataka v. Basappa, 2001 (3) Crimes 320 , a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held where investigation was tainted and the presence of eye witnesses to occurrence appeared to be doubtful, conviction could not be based on the testimony of such eye witnesses. The aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since it cannot be said that the investigation was tainted and presence of the eye witnesses of the occurrence appeared to be doubtful. The aforesaid decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since it cannot be said that the investigation was tainted and presence of the eye witnesses of the occurrence appeared to be doubtful. In this case, it cannot be disputed that the injured person in the occurrence himself is the best eye witness and there is no other accused, except the revision petitioner/accused and P.W.1, the injured himself has categorically stated that he was attacked by the revision petitioner/accused by knife at the place of occurrence. 20. In Sivagami and Others v. State (supra), this Court has held that a complaint lodged after deliberation, roping in all accused and there was fabrication, conviction cannot be sustained. In the instant case, there could be no deliberation to foist the case against the revision petitioner/accused as further without prosecuting the person, who caused the injuries, P.W.1 could not have given complaint against the revision petitioner/accused. 21. In Jeevarathinam v. State of Inspector of Police (supra) (MB), it was held that non-examination of persons mentioned in the FIR and other local witnesses was fatal to the case registered under Section 302 IPC. 22. In the instant case, the victim himself was examined as P.W.1. He has given cogent evidence about the occurrence and the medical evidence given by P.W.6 and P.W.7, Doctors, who gave treatment to P.W.1 and wound certificate, Exhibit P-5 and AR copy, Exhibit P-6 are sufficient to establish the occurrence. As held by the Courts below, the prosecution witnesses 1 to 10 and the documents and material objects marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-10 and the M.Os.1 to 3, including knife would establish the prosecution case against the revision petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 23. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, trivial contradictions would not vitiate the prosecution case, when the case has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The grievous nature of injury sustained by P.W.1 would establish that it would attract Section 307 IPC and by timely treatment, the life of the injured P.W.1 has been saved. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The grievous nature of injury sustained by P.W.1 would establish that it would attract Section 307 IPC and by timely treatment, the life of the injured P.W.1 has been saved. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. As the judgment rendered by the Court below warrants no interference by this Court in this criminal revision, there is no reason for allowing this Revision. 25. In the result, the confirming the judgment rendered by the Courts below, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. The respondent is directed to secure the presence of the petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any. Petition dismissed.