JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to calling for the records relating to conviction and sentence imposed by the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.31 of 2006 dated 23.06.2009 as modified by the Hon'ble 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in C.A.No.31 of 2009 dated 23.09.2014 and set aside the same and thereby acquit the petitioners herein from all the charges framed against them.) 1. This Criminal Revision is filed by the accused 1 & 2 in S.C.No.31 of 2006 dated 23.06.2009 imposed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore as modified in C.A.No.31 of 2009 by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, vide order dated 23.09.2014. 2. First petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 294, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC and the second petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 506(ii) and 307 r/w 114 of I.P.C by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C.No.31 of 2006 and sentenced to undergo as follows: Offence Sentence 294 IPC One month R.I 324 IPC Six months R.I 506(ii) IPC Two years R.I 307 IPC Fine of Rs.500/-, in default, three months S.I and five years R.I. Second Petitioner/A2:- Offence Sentence 506(ii) IPC Two month R.I 307 r/w 114 of IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default, three months S.I and five years R.I. 3. On appeal, the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial Court on the 1st accused was confirmed for offence under Sections 294, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., acquitted him for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. As far as 2nd accused is concerned, the sentence imposed under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C was confirmed. Whereas, the conviction under Section 307 r/w 114 of I.P.C altered to 324 r/w 114 of I.P.C., reduced the sentence to three years R.I. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the version of the prosecution is contrary to evidence. The inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R and forwarding the same to the Judicial Magistrate, not taken note by the Court below. No obscene or lascivious words uttered by the 1st accused, same not proved. In spite of that, the 1st accused erroneously convicted for offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. Similarly, when there is no evidence to believe that the accused used intimidatory words, conviction under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is to be set aside for want of evidence. No obscene or lascivious words uttered by the 1st accused, same not proved. In spite of that, the 1st accused erroneously convicted for offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. Similarly, when there is no evidence to believe that the accused used intimidatory words, conviction under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C is to be set aside for want of evidence. Also submitted that, the Appellate Court found that the offence committed by the 2nd accused under Section 307 of I.P.C is not made out. But, only offence under Section 324 r/w 114 of I.P.C is made out. The Trial Judge ought to have imposed sentence for 6 months R.I only on par with sentence imposed to 1st accused for the same offence the enhanced punishment of three years R.I to 2nd accused for the very same offence in the same transaction is against fairness and equity. 5. The brief case of the prosecution is that, on 24.12.2004, at 8.30 p.m when Tamilselvan (P.W.1) and his relative Thiru.Mathiyazhagan were sitting in the entrance of the house and due to previous enmity, the 1st accused/Prakash & 2nd accused/Velmurugan using abusive words picked quarrel. A2/Velmurugan gone to the nearby shop took Aruval and gave to 1st accused and instigated him to attack. Accordingly, A1/Prakash got Aruval from A2/Velmurugan and attacked Tamilselvan, causing cut injury on P.W.1 forearm and right side back. Thereafter, A2/Velmurugan, took the knife from the 1st accused and attacked Thiru.Mathiyazhagan, on his head saying 'get lost'. Mr.Tamilselvan and Mr.Mathiyazhagan, sustained cut injury and fell down. On seeing the public, rushing towards the spot. Both the accused threatened them showing knife and fleded. Mr.Tamilselvan, after sending his uncle Mathiyazhagan for treatment to the hospital came to the Police Station and gave the complaint (Ex.P.1). The said complaint was received at 23.30 hrs on 24.12.2004 in crime No. 399 of 2004 under Sections 294, 326, 324 & 506(ii) and 307 of I.P.C. Thiru.Tamilselvan got recovered from his injury. Whereas, the other injured person Mr.Mathiyazhagan, who sustained cut injury on his scalp, lost his speech and movement. 6. On completion of investigation, final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram. After furnishing copies of the documents, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Whereas, the other injured person Mr.Mathiyazhagan, who sustained cut injury on his scalp, lost his speech and movement. 6. On completion of investigation, final report filed before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram. After furnishing copies of the documents, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, took the case on file in S.C.No.31 of 2006, framed charges under Sections 294, 324 & 506(ii) and 307 of I.P.C against A1 and against 2nd accused charge under Section 506(ii) & 307 r/w 114 of I.P.C framed. 7. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, marked 11 exhibits and one material object. 8. Thiru.Tamilselvan, the defacto complainant as well as one of the injured was examined as P.W.1. He had deposed about the illicit relationship he had with one Kathirmathi, the wife of the 1st accused brother. According to him, A1/Prakash & A2/Velmurugan came to his house on 24.12.2004 and abused him with filthy language for having affair with Kathirmathi. A2/Velmurugan went to the nearby shop-cum-residence of Thiru.Ilangovan, located in the end of the street, took Aruval and gave it to the 1st accused. The 1st accused attacked him causing cut injury on his left side shoulder. Then, A2 took the Aruval from A1 and attacked Mathiyazhagan on his head, causing deep cut injury on his head. Mathiyazhagan skull got opened and the brain exposed. Thereafter, both the accused ran away from the scene. Thiru.Mathiyazhagan, who sustained serious injury was first referred to Pondicherry Government Hospital by the local hospital and on further reference, sent to Government Medical College, Chennai, where he took 6 months treatment as in patient. However, even after the surgery, he could not recover fully, not in a position to talk or understand. 9. P.W.2 [Murugan], a witness to the occurrence had spoken about the quarrel which took place on 24.12.2004 at 8.30 p.m near the entrance of P.W.1 house. He had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the fact that A2 went to the shop of Ilangovan, took an Aruval and gave it to A1[Prakash] and instigated him to attack. A1/Prakash, attacked P.W.1 on the left side shoulder. Thereafter, A2/Velmurugan took the knife from A1/Prakash attacked Mathiyazhagan on his head, causing fracture of the scalp and exposure of the brain. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by P.W.3 a resident nearby the scene of occurrence. 10. A1/Prakash, attacked P.W.1 on the left side shoulder. Thereafter, A2/Velmurugan took the knife from A1/Prakash attacked Mathiyazhagan on his head, causing fracture of the scalp and exposure of the brain. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by P.W.3 a resident nearby the scene of occurrence. 10. P.W.5 [Kalaiselvi] a resident near the scene of occurrence had witnessed the occurrence and the wordy quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 [Tamilselvan]. She saw A2/Velmurugan carrying a knife and crossing her house and also saw A2 causing cut injury on the head of Mathiyazhagan, she could not identify who attacked Tamilselvan (P.W.1). 11. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd accused submitted that there is discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence (SOC). Whether occurred at Well street or East street is uncertain due to contradictions among the witnesses. More so, evidently there was an earlier fight, in which, the accused were attacked and they sustained injury and ran away from the place for their life. Soon after, there was some other problem with P.W.1 and others which has ended up in the injury on P.W.1 and his uncle Mathiyazhagan. 12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also vehemently argued that, non examination of other victim Mathiyazhagan is fatal to the prosecution case. Besides the registration of F.I.R belatedly and same was not forwarded forthwith as led to distortion of truth. 13. Since, there is no representation for the petitioner, this Court requested Dr.Krishnamoorthy, Senior member of the Bar to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, Dr.Krishnamoorthy, assisted the Court by placing the argument in favour of the 1st petitioner. The Learned Counsel on record Mr.R.Rajamani, later joined him made his submissions on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. 14. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the incident occurred on 24.12.2004 at 8.30 a.m. The complaint registered at 23.30 hrs. The defacto complainant, who claims to have been sustained cut injury had gone to the Police Station to give his complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. The Police has not recovered any blood stained cloth from him. The accident report for P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.6 indicates that, he went to the hospital at 12.15 a.m, on 25.12.2004. The defacto complainant, who claims to have been sustained cut injury had gone to the Police Station to give his complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. The Police has not recovered any blood stained cloth from him. The accident report for P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.6 indicates that, he went to the hospital at 12.15 a.m, on 25.12.2004. The F.I.R is registered based on his complaint which was received by the Judicial Magistrate on 29.12.2004 at 10.00 a.m. The inordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R and the delay in filing the complaint has given room to manipulations of real fact. 15. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no recovery of material object for three days and only thereafter, material object was recovered and the said recovery is highly doubtful. 16. This Court, on considering the evidence of the injured victim P.W.1, finds that, he has stated the reason for the enmity and the specific overt act of both the accused. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.10. He on examining P.W.1 [Tamilselvan] certified that, P.W.1 sustained abrasion on the right scalp region and right upper arm. The injury found on P.W.1 correlates with the attack by A1/Prakash as stated in the deposition. The occurrence has been seen by the witnesses, who are residing nearby. One of the victim Mathiyazhagan was not examined because of his health condition. Due to the injury he sustained, fracture of his skull and exposure of brain. By medical intervention the doctors were able to save his life, but still his faculty not restored. Referring the entry in the Accident Register of Mathiyazhagan the Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasis that there is embellishment of facts. The Accident Register of Mr.Mathiyazhagan, which is marked as Ex.P.7 perused. In Ex.P.7, it is mentioned that, the attender informed that Mathiyazhagan was assaulted by two know persons and four unknown persons near Well street of the village. In the column meant for the person who brought the injured to the hospital, it is mentioned as 'relative' without name. Therefore, there is some discrepancy in the Accident Register contrary to the eye witnesses. Particularly, P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.5. In the column meant for the person who brought the injured to the hospital, it is mentioned as 'relative' without name. Therefore, there is some discrepancy in the Accident Register contrary to the eye witnesses. Particularly, P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.5. Similarly, the other lapses on the part of the prosecution are failure to forward the F.I.R forthwith to the Judicial Magistrate and failure to collect blood stain soil from scene of occurrence are all minor in nature, which pales into significance in view of unassailable evidence of the victim P.W.1 [Tamilselvan] and the other eye witnesses of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5. The weapon used is identified by the witnesses. The nature of injury is spoken by the Doctor, who treated Mathiyazhagan and Tamilselvan. While so, the Courts below had rightly held that the injuries found on Tamilselvan (P.W.1) was caused by A1/Prakash, which is simple in nature and the injuries found on Mathiyazhagan was caused by A2/Velmurugan which are grievous in nature. 17. The accused 1 & 2 were convicted for offences under Section 294, 324 & 506(ii) of I.P.C. Pointing out that, while A1/Prakash was sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C and A2/Velmurugan was sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. While both the petitioners were found guilty of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., different sentence for the same offence transaction is not permissible. Section 324 of I.P.C., reads as below:- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 18. The prosecution has proved the injuries found on P.W.1 and Mathiyazhagan was caused by A1 & A2 using the material object M.O.1 (Aruval). The prosecution has proved the injuries found on P.W.1 and Mathiyazhagan was caused by A1 & A2 using the material object M.O.1 (Aruval). The medical certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.6 for Tamilselvan indicates the injury is simple in nature and the injury found on Mathiyazhagan as per wound certificate (Ex.P.7) is grievous in injury (i.e.) fracture on the scalp and exposure of brain. Further, A2/Velmurugan, is the person who brought the weapon from nearby shop and given it to A1/Prakash to attack P.W.1 [Tamilselvan]. Thereafter, he took the knife from A1/Prakash and attacked Mathiyazhagan causing grievous injury. Therefore, considering the respective overt act, the Appellate Court has given higher punishment of three years R.I to the 2nd accused. This Court finds no disparity or unreasonableness in imposing the said sentence to A2. 19. The Learned Counsels further submitted that, as far as sentence for offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C., 2 years R.I is excessive and same may be considered. This Court, on overall appreciation on the facts finds that, the sentence for punishment of 2 years R.I under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C in the given case is not excessive. The seizure of the weapon used and the seat of attack and the subsequent conduct of the accused persons after causing injuries to Mathiyazhagan, finds no error in the finding of the Appellate Court judgment regarding conviction as well as sentence on the petitioners. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused within a period of 15 days, from today and commit them to prison to undergo remaining period of sentence imposed.