IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 846 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.367/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1180/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, THULASEEVILASOM VEEDU, KOTTATHALA PADINJARU MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT.COMPLAINANT-STATE ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 846 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 17-03-2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 1180 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M. -I, Kottarakkara, for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 325 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 23-08-2003 at about 5 p.m. the accused who is the husband of P.W.1 with the intention to voluntarily causing grevious hurt to P.W.1 , wrongfully confined P.W.1 in the bedroom of the house of the accused and after closing the door fisted her on both the cheeks , face, eyes and nose and other parts of her body. As a result of the above act of the accused P.W.1 sustained contusion and tenderness and pain all over her body and fracture of her nasal bone. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in Crl.r.P. No. 846 of 2009 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 2 documents as Exts. P1 and P2. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 24-6-2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 343 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and to p ay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay to suffer simple imprisonment under Sec . 342 and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 325 I.P.C. From out of the fine, a som of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 367 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 23-1-2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Crl.r.P. No. 846 of 2009 -:3:- Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 342 I.P.C. has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, I see little hope for interference and the same is accordingly confirmed. With regard to the conviction under Section 325 I.P.C., however, a perusal of Ext.P2 wound certificate and the testimony of P.W.2 the doctor will go to show that the act of fisting on the nose and the consequent fracture of the nasal bone have not been substantiated. The specific grievance of P.W.1 to the doctor as recorded in Ext.P2 wound certificate was that she was slapped on her face by her husband. The doctor examined as P.W.2 has not stated that there was fracture on the nasal bone. To confirm the suspected fracture to the nasal bone, the doctor had referred the patient to an Ortho and E.N.T. There is no medical evidence as to what happened after such reference. If so, the conviction under Sec. 325 is not sustainable. Instead, the offence which is made out is 323 I.P.C. and the conviction is altered accordingly. It is submitted that the petitioner has been taken into custody and he is in custody from 17-2-2009. If so the imprisonment Crl.r.P. No. 846 of 2009 -:4:- already undergone by the revision petitioner shall be sufficient for the conviction under Section 342 and 323 I.P.C. For the conviction under Sec. 342 I.P.C. the petitioner is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and for the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. the petitioner is also sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On default to pay the fine, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. From out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation. The petitioner is given one month's time to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 17th day of March 2009. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.r.P. No. 846 of 2009 -:5:-