IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 366 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.296/1995 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.94/1994 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, S/O.ABI, KAVARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRIMPANAM KARA, THIRUVANKULAM. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- 3.SADANANDAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HILL PALACE POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYARAJ. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.366 of 2000 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th July, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3, against whom a charge sheet was laid, alleging offences under Sections 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. After trial, first accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused 2 and 3 are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The fine, if realised, it was ordered that Rs.1,000/- will be paid to PW2 Kunjamma, Rs.500/- to PW1 Alexander and Rs.500/- to PW3 Saju under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 2. The above conviction and sentence were challenged before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. The said conviction and sentence are challenged in this revision. At the time when the revision was called, there Crl.RP.366/00 2 was no representation for the petitioners. Nobody argued the case for the accused. 3. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3 assaulted PW1 on 18.1.1993 at about 8.30 p.m by using an iron rod at a place away from the house of PW1 and near mini industries. Accused were motivated against PW1. PW1 was beaten on his head with iron rod by first accused and PW2 was also beaten by him with the same weapon and when she rushed to the place hearing the alarm, injuries were caused to her also. Accused 2 and 3 fisted PW3, who is the son of PW1, on his reaching there and thereby committed the various offences. 4. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exhibits P1 to P8 and MO1 iron rod. Both the courts below believed PW1 to PW3, whose evidence is consistent with the prosecution case. All of them are injured in the case and they deposed in accordance with the prosecution case. Their evidence remained undiscredited in cross-examination, held both the courts. They were examined by the doctor without delay and also medical certificates were issued relating to the nature of injuries sustained and those are Exhibits P2 to P4. Crl.RP.366/00 3 The evidence of the ocular witnesses were found to be corroborated by medical evidence and the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, it is further held. 5. On going through the evidence and the findings in the judgment, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. There is no illegality or impropriety in the findings or the order. The consistent concurrent findings of the court below cannot be said to be perverse, either. Those findings cannot be said to be incorrect on any aspect. On going through the revision memo, I find that the challenge is on the manner of appreciation of evidence, non examination of independent witnesses, non examination of the doctor, who examined the injured. But production of MO1 by the first accused before the police, non mention of names of accused to the doctor, plea of alibi by the first accused, availability of street light in the place of occurrence etc. 6. On going through the evidence and the impugned judgment, I find that all those contentions were considered by the courts below and a conclusion is arrived at, after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. I do not find Crl.RP.366/00 4 that any interference is called for, on the concurrent findings, on the points urged. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 stands undiscredited in cross-examination. None of the omissions pointed out by the revision petitioners will be sufficient to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There is absolutely no reason for interfering in the conviction or in the sentence, which is only consistent with the gravity of the offences committed. The mere enmity of the accused to the witnesses may not be a sufficient reason to discard the evidence of the injured, as rightly held by both the courts below. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs. Crl.RP.366/00 5 K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.366 of 2000 ------------------------------ O R D E R 13.7.2009