IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 772 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.432/1998 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.212/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- SOHAN S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL, THEKKAN MALIPURAM, PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.103/95 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.772 of 2000 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008. ORDER Heard. 2. Revision petitioner and PW1 are neighbours. It is alleged that revision petitioner stabbed the husband of PW1 and that case came up for hearing on 25.3.1995. Allegation is that on 26.3.1995 at about 4.15 p.m. revision petitioner criminally trespassed into the courtyard of PW1 and asking PW1 what had happened inspite of (his) stabbing the husband of PW1, revision petitioner kicked PW1 on her abdomen. Herself and her 1 ½ year old child whom she was carrying fell down. When neighbours came to the place of occurrence, revision petitioner ran away. PW1 was taken to the hospital. On the information given by her, police registered case against the revision petitioner for offences punishable under Section 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Revision petitioner faced trial, was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Appeal preferred by him was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in the light of evidence of DW1 and Ext.D6. According to the learned counsel, non-examination of CW4, husband of PW1 is fatal. Crl.R.P.No.772/2000 2 4. PW1, defacto complainant gave evidence in support of prosecution case. PW2 is a neighbour and supported the prosecution. On hearing sound from the courtyard of PW1, PW2 went there and saw revision petitioner giving kick on the abdomen of PW1. Thereafter, revision petitioner ran away. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that her brother was a witness in the case against revision petitioner allegedly stabbing the husband of PW1. PW3 is also a neighbour and claimed to have seen revision petitioner running away from the compound of PW1 on the relevant day and time. Since she did not support the prosecution in full, she was confronted with her previous statement. PW4 examined PW1 at Government Hospital on 26.3.1995 at about 5 p.m. and issued Ext.P2. PW1 had pain all over her body. She came with the history that she was kicked by the revision petitioner on 26.3.1995 at 4 p.m. PW4 opined that injury could be caused as alleged. PW5 who investigated the case prepared Ext.P3, mahazar for the scene of occurrence. 5. DW1 examined revision petitioner at Government Hospital on 26.3.1995 at 5 p.m He had complaint of pain and small incised wound, 1 c.m. long. He came with the history that he was assaulted by Gopalakrishnan and Gopi 6. Counsel for revision petitioner argued that if conviction of revision petitioner in stabbing case was on 25.3.1995, there was no possibility of revision petitioner asking PW1 on 26.3.1995 as to what had happened inspite of his stabbing the husband of PW1. It is not clear from the evidence of PW1 whether conviction of revision petitioner in the stabbing case was on 25.3.1995 Crl.R.P.No.772/2000 3 and assuming so, what was the extent of sentence imposed on revision petitioner in that case. PWs 1 and 2 have given evidence regarding the alleged incident. PW3 had also seen revision petitioner going away from the compound of PW1. Revision petitioner has no explanation how he happened to be within the compound of PW1. Though it is the case of revision petitioner that CW4, husband of PW1 and one Gopi assaulted him on the day of alleged incident, even the evidence of PW3 who did not support the prosecution in full would indicate that at the time of incident, CW4 was not present at the place of occurrence. Mere fact that revision petitioner reported to the hospital with a 1 c.m. long incised wound is not by itself sufficient to indicate that he was assaulted by CW4 and Gopi as suggested by him. Non-examination of CW4 is not fatal as he is not a witness to the incident and at any rate, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3. On going though the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which gets some corroboration from PW3 and also in the light of evidence of PW4, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of revision petitioner. 7. So far as sentence is concerned, learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner and PW1 are neighbours and presently, they are living in peace. It is also submitted by learned counsel that revision petitioner has undergone imprisonment in the case of stabbing CW4. Incident occurred 13 years before. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to send revision petitioner to the jail, instead, he can be directed to pay compensation to PW1 who suffered at his hands. Crl.R.P.No.772/2000 4 Resultantly, Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- (1) Substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is modified as imprisonment till rising of the court. (2) Revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PW1 as compensation Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within one month from this day failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (3) Revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 17.11.2008 to suffer the sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.4158 of 2000 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.772/2000 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.772 of 2000 ORDER 14th October, 2008