IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 751 of 2001(A) -------------------------------------- CRA.63/1994 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.466/1987 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUKU, S/O.KUNJAN, KATTUVILA VEEDU, U.P.7/444, MAVARATHALAKONAM MURI, ULOOR VILLAGE. 2. GOPALAN, S/O.KUNJAN, KATTUVILA VEEDU, U.P.7/444, MAVARATHALAKONAM MURI, ULOOR VILLAGE. 3. THULASI, S/O.KUNJAN, KATTUVILA VEEDU, U.P.7/444, MAVARATHALAKONAM MURI, ULOOR VILLAGE BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REPRESENTING ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION (CRIME 282/87) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 751 of 2001(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3519 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.751 OF 2001 DISMISSED 19.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 751 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the19th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners, three in number faced trial in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No.466/1987 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty for the offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine. They preferred appeal to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition. Counsel for the revision petitioners remained absent at the time of hearing. I heard the public prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. The points for consideration are (1)Whether the conviction of revision petitioners is legal and proper. (2)whether the sentence awarded is excessive. 3. I perused the records. 4. The case originated on the first information (Exhibit P1) given by PW1, one of injured to PW7 (DW1) on 16/08/1987 at about CRL.R.P.No. 751/ 2001 2 6.30 P.M.. PW7(DW1) registered the case. 5. PWs 1 and 2 were examined by PW5. Exhibit P3 and P4 are the wound certificates. It is revealed that PW1 suffered hurt as well as grievous hurt while PW2 suffered hurt. PW5 has opined that the injuries could be caused as alleged. 6. Evidence regarding the alleged incident is given by PWS 1 to 3 and 6. PW1 and 2, injured, stated that on the pathway in front of their house, the revision petitioners assaulted them on the relevant day and time. PW1 stated that the revision petitioner No.1 assaulted her with stick. Revision Petitioner No. 2 assaulted PW2 with handle of spade. Revision Petitioner No.3 assaulted PW2 with stick. PW3 claimed that he is a neighbour and saw the revision petitioners assaulting the 'complainants' (i.e. PW1 and 2). PW6 also gave similar evidence, but he was not able to state the overt acts of each of the revision petitioners. It is contended in the Revision Petition that there is no reliable evidence against the revision petitioner. Further contention is that the evidence of PW1 to 3 and 6 cannot be believed on account of the material contradictions. CRL.R.P.No. 751/ 2001 3 7. It is true that PW6 was not able to say each and every overt act attributed to the Revision petitioners. But he has given evidence that he had seen the Revision Petitioners assaulting PWs 1 and 2. PW1 identified M.O.1 with which the revision petitioner No.1 assaulted her. PW2 identified M.Os 1 and 2. PW3 identified M.Os1 to 3. M.Os 1 to 3 were seized by PW7, while preparing Exhibit P2, Mahazar, for scene of occurance. In Exhibit P2, it is stated that house of the Revision Petitioners is situated nearby. PW7 was summoned as defence witness and examined as DW1. It was suggested to him that he had gone to the Medical College Hospital and recorded the statement(Exhibit P1) of PW1. He claimed that PW1 had come to the police station and given the statement. 8. I went through Exhibit P1. That document does not say that the statement of PW1 was recorded at the Medical College hospital. Convincing evidence is given by PW1 to 3 and 6 regarding the involvement of the Revision Petitioners in the alleged incident. That the PWS 1 and 2 suffered grievous hurt, is also proved. The courts below have concurrently found that the Revision petitioners committed CRL.R.P.No. 751/ 2001 4 the offence as alleged. There is no reason to interfere. 9. Considering the nature of injuries caused to PW1 and 2, I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence awarded. In the result, the Revision Petition failed and it is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm