IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 179 of 2001(C) ----------------------------- CRA.7/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CC.426/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- ALLESU, S/O.VAREED, PALLIPPATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHAMKUTTY KARA, MOOKKANNUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SRI.C.P.TENNY RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.179 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 324 IPC by the trial court as well as the appellate court has preferred this revision petition. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the sessions court. 2. The prosecution case in a nut shell was that on March 23, 1994 at about 7.30 p.m. petitioner/accused on account of his previous animosity towards PW1 had voluntarily caused hurt to him by cutting with a chopper on the back of his head. 3. The prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. There was no oral evidence on the side of the defence, though Ext.D1 was marked. Crl.R.P.No.179 OF 2001 :: 2 :: 4. As rightly noticed by the courts below, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 clearly established the prosecution case. PW1 stated before the court that he was attacked with the chopper at the back of his head while he was standing on the road talking to PWs3 and 4. The accused had come from behind and slashed the chopper not once but twice. PW3 had caught hold of the accused while he was running away dropping the chopper at the scene of occurrence. PW4 also corroborated the above version given by PW3. PW2 stated before the court that when he heard a sound and looked towards its source, he found that PWs3 and 4 were catching hold of PW1 in their hands with blood oozing out from the back of his head. He saw the accused running away from the scene. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that PW1 had admitted before the court that he could not definitely say whether M.O.1 was the chopper which was used by the accused. It is true that PW1 stated before the court that he could not see the weapon very clearly because he was attacked by the accused from behind. After the incident also he could not see the weapon Crl.R.P.No.179 OF 2001 :: 3 :: clearly. I am impressed with the above explanation given by PW1. More importantly, PWs3 and 4 and in particular the former had asserted before the court that he had seen the accused attacking PW1 with M.O.1 chopper. PW3 had no doubt about the weapon used for the crime. PW4 also had corroborated the above version. 6. Having perused the testimonies of these four witnesses, I do not find any reason to disbelieve them. In my view, the courts below had correctly placed reliance on the evidence of these witnesses to hold the petitioner guilty. It is also contended by the learned counsel that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the witnesses could have identified the weapon because there was no indication from the materials available on record that there was enough light at the scene of occurrence. But as rightly noticed by the appellate court there was not even a suggestion to that effect from the side of the accused before the trial court. 7. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding Crl.R.P.No.179 OF 2001 :: 4 :: entered by the courts below. However, learned counsel has made an impassioned plea to show leniency in the matter of sentence. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner deserves a lenient treatment. Therefore, the order of substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months is set aside. Petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay the amount of fine of Rs.2,000 imposed on him. Over and above that, petitioner shall pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, petitioner shall suffer imprisonment for one month. On realisation of the amount from the petitioner, a sum of Rs.7,000/- shall be paid to PW1. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes