IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2307 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.301/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI CC.156/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ALAVI, S/O.MOHAMMEDEESA, POOKKODAN HOUSE, PULLARA AMSOM, MANIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (MANJERI POLICE STATION LIMITS). BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2307 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri in criminal appeal No.301 of 2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under sections 323 and 326 of the Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 26-12-1998 at about 6 p.m on account of enemity to PW1 for allegedly obstructing the marriage of his sister petitioner assaulted her with a sickle and stick causing hurt/grievous hurt to her. Apart from the offence above stated, offence under section 506(ii) of the Code was also attributed to petitioner but learned magistrate found him not guilty of that offence. Petitioner is convicted under sections 323 and 326 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and one month, respectively. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no acceptable evidence regarding alleged incident. Further, the seizure of MOs. 1 and 2 is not proved. 2. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 to prove the alleged incident, of them PWs.1 and 3 did not support. PW3 is the father of petitioner. PW1 is his second wife. They have given evidence that on the relevant day, time and place petitioner caused hurt to PW1 as alleged by the prosecution. They also identified MOs.1 and 2, the weapons allegedly used. Evidence of PW8 and Ext.P8 shows that he Crl.R.P.No.2307 of 2009 2 examined PW1 (on the day of incident) and found injuries on PW1. She sustained fracture of her right wrist and left elbow. Evidence of PW9 and Ext.P7 show that PW1 had suffered fracture on the left-elbow and right wrist. MOs. 1 and 2 according to prosecution was seized from the place of incident as per Ext.P2, mahazar prepared by PW7, the investigating officer. PW5 is attestor to Ext.P2, scene mahazar. PW6 registered the case. PW7 has given evidence regarding the steps he had took in the investigation of the case. 3. So far as incident is concerned there is evidence of PWs.1 and 3 of whom PW3 is none other than the father of petitioner. I have gone through the judgments under challenge and on hearing counsel for petitioner, I find no reason to think that courts below wrongly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 3. The weapons have been identified by PWs.1 and 3 and its seizure is proved by PW7 and Ext.P7. I do not find reason to interfere with the finding entered by the courts below that petitioner voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt to PW1. 4. It is not disputed that PW1 is the step mother of petitioner. There appears to have been some family problems which resulted in the incident. Even according to the prosecution, petitioner thought that PW1 is obstructing the marriage of his sister. Considering these circumstances I am satisfied that simple imprisonment for a period of Crl.R.P.No.2307 of 2009 3 one month each is sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed in part to the extent that sentence awarded to the petitioner on both counts is modified as simple imprisonment for one month each, to run concurrently. Needless to say that the period of detention if any undergone will be set off against the sentence as modified hereby. In other respects the revision petition will stand dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/