IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 296 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.11/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC NO.40/1997 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------ KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.IKKARAN, POTHAPARAMBIL VEEDU, AIRAPURAM KARA, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.296 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. ORDER For voluntarily causing hurt to PW2, his sister with a chopper, the revision petitioner was chargesheeted in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery in C.C.No.40 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. The charge is that on 14.10.1996 at about 12.30 p.m. on account of dispute regarding tharawad property, the revision petitioner assaulted PW2 with MO1, chopper. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. Aggrieved, the revision petitioner is invoking the power of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned counsel that the courts below are not justified in placing reliance on the concoted and interested version of PW2. The learned counsel submitted that MO1 is not proved to be the weapon of offence and that going by the version of PW2, it could not also be. Counsel submitted that in the light of the evidence of DW1 supported by Exts.D1 and D2 that the Crl.R.P.No.296/2001 2 revision petitioner sustained injuries, and the prosecution having not explained that, the courts below should have accepted the version of the revision petitioner as probable. 3. Though PWs 1 and 3 (among them PW3 is the brother of PW2 and the revision petitioner) were cited by the prosecution to speak to the alleged incident, they refused. PW2 stated that on the date of the incident she had been to her tharawad house in connection with the measurement of the property, it could not be done and she was returning to her house. When she reached in front of the house of Shri Chandrasekharan Nair, the revision petitioner came behind and assaulted her with chopper. She warded off the assault. But it fell on her arm. Revision petitioner again assaulted her five or six times with the same chopper. On hearing the hue and cry the people gathered. She was taken to the hospital. 4. That PW2 suffered injuries is not very much in dispute and proved by the testimony of PW7 who proved Ext.P4 issued by CW5. PW6, the Sub Inspector in the course of investigation is said to have seized MO1, chopper from a bush near the place of occurrence as per Ext.P3. But PW2 did not identify MO1 as the weapon of offence. She claimed that she is unable to identify the weapon of offence. Crl.R.P.No.296/2001 3 5. The revision petitioner examined DW1, the Medical Officer of THQ Hospital, Perumbavoor and proved Exts.D1 and D2. That evidence revealed that revision petitioner was examined by DW1 on 14.10.1996 at about 2.25 p.m. Revision petitioner had two lacerated wounds on the scalp and of course, complaint of pain. 6. It is true that PWs 1 and 3 refused to support the prosecution which rests solely on the testimony of PW2, the injured and the defacto complainant. But, corroboration is neither a rule of law nor of evidence. It is only a rule of prudence. That, PW2 suffered injuries with a chopper was not seriously disputed by the defence also when she was in the box as is born out from the suggestion that PW3 had assaulted the revision petitioner with a chopper, PW2 intervened and suffered injuries. It is true that PW2 stated that the chopper with which she was assaulted is smaller in length (than the chopper shown to her by the Law Officer in the course of chief examination). But, that did not mean that MO1 is not the weapon of offence. I can only understand the version of PW2 regarding the length of the chopper as her impression. Even if it is assumed that MO1 is not proved to be weapon of offence, there is the suggestion that PW2 suffered injuries with a chopper while she intervened to prevent the assault by PW3 with chopper on the revision petitioner. Therefore, much importance need not be given to the contention of the revision petitioner that MO1, chopper is not the weapon of offence. Crl.R.P.No.296/2001 4 7. It is true that the revision petitioner also had sustained some injuries and had undergone treatment at THQ Hospital, Perumbavoor. The dimension of injuries is not revealed by Exts.D1 and D2. Therefore, those injuries can be classified as minor injuries. Even if it is assumed that the prosecution did not have a definite case as to how the revision petitioner sustained those injuries, that has no consequence when the incident is otherwise proved and that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW2 as to how she sustained injuries at the hands of the revision petitioner. I find that as against the suggestion put to PW2 as to how she sustained the injuries when PW3 assaulted the revision petitioner with a 'chopper', the alleged history and cause of injuries stated by the revision petitioner to DW1 as seen from Ext.D1 is that he sustained the injuries when assaulted and pelted with stones by PWs 2 and 3 and two others. In other words, revision petitioner at the first point of time did not bring in the use of chopper. In the circumstances, I am not impressed by the defence set up the revision petitioner based on Exts.D1 and D2. The courts below also were not impressed by the defence of the revision petitioner. The finding entered by the courts below rest on the testimony of PW2 which to some extent, is corroborated by Ext.P4. There is little reason to interfere with the finding. 8. It is certainly taking into account the close relationship between the revision petitioner and PW2 and property dispute being the motive for the incident that that the learned Magistrate was lenient in the matter of sentence, Crl.R.P.No.296/2001 5 confining it to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). Further leniency is not warranted, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by PW2. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 17.11.2008 to receive the sentence. Crl.M.P.No.1245 of 2001 in Crl.R.P.No.296 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.296/2001 6 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.296 of 2001 ORDER 15th September, 2008.