IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 268 of 2003(N) ------------------------------ CRA.389/2000 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, THRISSUR CC.523/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, BINDU NIVAS, CHAKYARPARAMBU, GURUVAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P. SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Crl.R.P. No. 268 of 2003 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 523/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam and appellant in Crl.A.No.389/2000 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur. He was convicted under sections 323 and 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 341 IPC. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court confirmed his conviction, but modified the sentence to pay a fine of ` 500/- for the offence punishable under section 341 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused CRRP 268/2003 2 has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution, as shaped shaped in evidence before the trial court, in brief, is this:- On November 25, 1994 at 8.15 a.m. the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 de facto complainant in front of N.S.S. Building, Guruvayur, fisted on his face, caught hold of his shirt and fisted on his chest and thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 IPC. PW1 the de facto complainant came to the Guruvayur Police Station and lodged a complaint. PW7 Head Constable attached to the Guruvayur Police Station, on receipt of the complaint from PW1, registered the case against the accused. He conducted investigation and prepared mahazar Ext.P3. The then Sub Inspector of the Guruvayur Police Station after completing the investigation laid the charge before the trial court. 3. The accused, on appearance before the trial court, pleaded not guilty to the charge under sections 341 and CRRP 268/2003 3 323 IPC. PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, the accused denied the entire incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as afore said. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court confirmed his conviction but modified the sentence as stated above. The accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 6. The following points arise for consideration :- 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused under sections 323 and 341 IPC can be sustained? 2) Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is excessive or unduly harsh ? CRRP 268/2003 4 7. Point No.1:- PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the de facto complainant and injured. He was a Security Officer in Guruvayur Devaswom. He testified in terms of the case of the prosecution. Nothing was brought out during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. PW4 supported his evidence on all material particulars. PWs.1 and 4 have no enmity to falsely implicate the accused. PW3 doctor who treated PW1 and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate noted the corresponding injuries on PW1:- 1) Grazed stain abrasion left side of jaw 1.5 x 1 c.m. 2) Complaint of pain front of the chest left side. 3) Grazed skin abrasion front of the right shim. Therefore, in my view the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in believing the evidence of PWs. 1 and 4. 8. PW2 is an independent witness who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PWs.5 to PW7 are CRRP 268/2003 5 Investigating Officers. 9. The case of the accused as suggested during the cross-examination of PW1 and as stated when questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate was that due to previous enmity he was falsely implicated in this case. There is no substance in the above contention. No evidence was adduced by him to prove his case. For all these reasons, I am inclined to hold that the trial court and lower appellate court are perfectly justified in believing the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and finding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 IPC. His conviction thereunder is confirmed. 10. Point No.2: As regards the sentence, the trial court has imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 341 IPC and sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The lower appellate court confirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to pay fine of ` 500/- for the offence under section CRRP 268/2003 6 341 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- for the offence under section 323 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. I find no special reason to reduce the sentence. 11. For all these reasons the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused under sections 323 and 341 IPC rendered by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court is upheld. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court which was modified by the lower appellate court is confirmed. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused before the trial court shall be adjusted towards the fine imposed. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn CRRP 268/2003 7 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.R.P. No. 268/2003 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ O R D E R 24-6-2011