IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1423 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRL.A.110/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.124/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- MAKKANARI MOOSSA, S/O.ABDULLA, VILLIAPALLY AMSOM, MAYANNUR BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/REPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT&STATE: ---------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1423 of 2001 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. Revision petitioner is the accused in Calender Case No. 124/1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara and appellant in Crl.A. No.110/98 of III Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. He was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year by the learned Magistrate in the judgment dated 24th February, 1998, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court by judgment dated October 23, 2001. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial Court in brief is thus: 3. On October 8, 1993 in the night while PW1, the defacto complainant, was talking with PW2 and PW4 from the house of PW4, somebody lighted torch on his face, that thereafter the accused came to the house of PW4 and abused PW1. At the request of PW4 the accused went away. At about 10.15 PM when PW 1 and 2 reached the road infront of the house of PW4, Crl.R.P.No.1423 of 2001 2 the accused came there and beat PW1 with a stick. On hearing the cry of PW 1, PW4 and others came there. The accused went away. PW1 who sustained injuries was taken to hospital from where PW5, the Doctor treated him and issued Exhibit P3 wound certificate. On receipt of intimation from the hospital, PW6, Head Constable, attached to Vadakara Police station, proceeded to the hospital and recorded Exhibit P1 FIS of the injured and on the basis of which, he registered Exhibit P4 F.I.R. PW7 the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakara conducted investigation and laid the charge against the accused before the trial court. 4. On appearance before the trial court, accused pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 324 of IPC. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked and MO1 was produced by the prosecution. When the accused was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by learned Magistrate, he denied the incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. On an appreciation of evidence the trial court found that the accused beat PW1 with a stick causing him the injury as described in Exhibit P3 and therefore convicted him under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, the lower appellate court confirmed his Crl.R.P.No.1423 of 2001 3 conviction and sentence. The accused had now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 6. Heard the counsel for the review petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The following points arise for consideration: (1). Whether the accused beat PW1 with stick and voluntarily caused hurt to him as alleged by the prosecution? (2). Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 324 of IPC rendered by the trial court which is confirmed by the lower appellate court can be sustained? 8. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked and Exhibit MO1 was produced on the side of the prosecution before the Magistrate to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the injured and the defacto complainant. PWs2 and 4 are eye witnesses. PW 3 is a witness to the scene mahazar. PW 5 is the doctor who examined PW1 and issued Exhibit P3 certificate. PWs 6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers. 9. I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4., copy of which is supplied by the counsel for the revision petitioner. They gave a consistent version regarding the incident. No serious discrepancies or inconsistencies were Crl.R.P.No.1423 of 2001 4 brought out in cross-examination to discredit their evidence. They have no previous enmity towards accused. That apart PW5 the doctor who examined PW1 found corresponding injuries on him. 10. The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that as the incident occurred in the night PW1, 2 and 4 would not have identified the assailants. There is no substance in the above contention. Accused is a person known to PWs 1, 2 and 4. That apart PW1, 2 and 4 had the opportunity to see the accused from close quarters. They have categorically stated it was the accused who beat PW1. There is no ground to suspect the credibility of these witnesses in this aspect. 11. The specific case of the accused when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was that he did not assault PW1 as alleged. But, he has not explained why PW1 has falsely implicated him in this case. For all these reasons I find that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court are justified in holding that prosecution has proved that the accused beat PW1 with a stick, as alleged by PW1 inflicting him the injury described in Exhibit P3, the wound certificate. That being so, the conviction of the accused under Section 324 of IPC has to be confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.1423 of 2001 5 12. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year, which was confirmed in appeal. PW1 sustained only contusions and abrasions on the right side of his face. Taking into consideration the fact that the injuries sustained by PW1 are minor in nature and that the incident occurred in 1993, that is about 17 years ago, I feel that the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the defacto complainant would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The sentence imposed by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal is modified to the effect that revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to PW1, defacto complainant, in default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month. One month time is granted for payment of compensation. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court, on or before June 30, 2011. His bail bond stands cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc