IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1588 of 2004(C) -------------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.206/2002 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA, CC.NO.45/1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PEERUMEDU] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA, S/O. JOSEPH, DYMUKKU ESTATE, IVTH DIVISION, LAYAM, DYMUKKU KARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY, SRI.MATHEW SKARIA. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX.M.THOMRA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1588 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August 2011 O R D E R The accused who was convicted by J.F.C.M., Peermade for offence punishable under Sec.326 IPC is the revision petitioner. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for four months. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. 2. The prosecution case in short is as follows :- PW2, who is the worker in Division No.IV of Dymukku estate had told the accused that accused should not visit her house. Due to this animosity towards PW2, accused inflicted injuries on 17.9.1997 at about 8.30 AM while she was engaged in her work at Dymukku estate. The accused inflicted a cut injury on her right shoulder with MO1 knife – used for pruning tea plants. The evidence given by PW2 was to some extend Crl.R.P. No.1588 of 2004 -: 2 :- corroborated by PW3 who deposed that he heard the cry of PW2 and when he rushed to the scene he could see PW2 lying with injuries and the accused leaving the place with a knife. PW2 was immediately removed to the hospital. The F.I. statement was given by PW1, an eye witness to the occurrence but she turned hostile. The Wound Certificate (Ext.P5) given by PW8 supported the evidence given by PW2. The allegation made by PW2 was in conformity with the statement given by PW1 to the police and the evidence given in court. The fact that the accused was seen leaving the place with MO1 did corroborate the evidence given by PW2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is difference in the description of the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused. The definite case of PW2 was that she was inflicted a cut injury with a knife. After the incident, the accused handed over the knife to another person and that person later produced it before the investigating officer. In the nature of the evidence adduced by PW2, the discrepancy if any in the description of the Crl.R.P. No.1588 of 2004 -: 3 :- weapon, whether it is a 'വകത' (chopper) or pruning knife could not be of that much significance. The question is whether the sharp edge of the knife was used to inflict the cut injury on the right shoulder of PW2. There was fracture on her right scapula. The evidence would show that PW2 underwent treatment as an inpatient at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam from 17.9.1997 till 25.9.1997. It has also come in evidence that she again underwent treatment as an inpatient in the Estate Hospital for about 43 days. The learned Appellate Judge has observed that the evidence would show that the accused had caused deep cut wound on the right shoulder and her right hand became immobile or dysfunctional. The very nature of the grievous hurt caused to PW2 would show that it could have been caused only by such a sharp edged weapon. The finding entered by the two courts below does not warrant interference. 4. The courts below analysed the evidence given by PW2 and also PW3 who saw the accused leaving the place with knife in his hand in the correct perspective. The fact Crl.R.P. No.1588 of 2004 -: 4 :- that it is corroborated by the medical evidence also inspired the courts below to accept the case of PW2 as true. In the light of the evidence and circumstances pointed out above, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction concurrently entered by the two courts below. The conviction is thus confirmed. 5. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the accused is only a coolie and so leniency may be shown to him. It is pertinent to note that PW2, the victim was a worker of the estate. The injury inflicted on her right shoulder made her right hand practically useless. She could not go for work. Still the learned Magistrate directed only Rs.3,000/- as fine which was directed to be paid to PW2 as compensation. The Honourable Supreme Court had reminded the subordinate court of the necessity to award proper sentence to the accused and to award compensation to the victims. The court has a duty to do justice not only to the accused but to the victims as well. A poor estate worker was inflicted with such a grievous cut injury but the learned Crl.R.P. No.1588 of 2004 -: 5 :- Magistrate awarded only a paltry amount to her as compensation. In the above circumstance, this Court can only reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the petitioner/ accused and to modify the fine amount to do justice to the victim as well. In the result, the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Sec.326 IPC is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the accused is sentenced to R.I. for 10 months and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW2 and in default he will undergo R.I. for four months. The learned Magistrate will take steps to recover the said amount from the accused so as to pay the same to the victim. The learned Magistrate will execute the sentence without delay. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt