IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 187 of 2002() ----------------------------------------- CRA.125/1994 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.72/1992 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- BABU, S/O. SREEDHARAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, NJAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.PRABHAKARAN SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI. T. RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.21 OF 1988 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION). BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.187 OF 2002 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused in C.C No.72/1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal challenging his conviction for the offences under Sections 451 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Negativing his plea of not guilty, the trial magistrate convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each with direction to undergo the imprisonment concurrently. Challenge against his conviction by way of an appeal was turned down by the learned sessions Judge, who affirmed the sentence imposed also without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up with this revision. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 05-02-1998, at above 7:30 p.m the accused on account of previous enmity committed trespass upon the house occupied by PW2, attacked PW1, the injured, with a chopper and caused him grievous hurt. PW1, the injured in the occurrence suffered the following injuries. Crl. R.P No.187 OF 2002 2 1. A lacerated injury 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in the vertex. 2. A lacerated injury 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in the right frontal region. 3. An abrasion in the left upper eye lid. 4. An abrasion in the right big toe. 3. Occurrence involved in the case was found proved on the materials tendered by the prosecution by both the courts below accepting the ocular account given thereof by the injured and two other witnesses, PW2 and PW3. PW2, in whose house the occurrence took place, is the brother-in-law of the injured. PW3 is the wife of the injured. Ext.P4 wound certificate prepared over the person of the injured, whereunder the injuries as aforesaid on his person were noted, was proved through another doctor, PW6, since the doctor who prepared such certificate was not available at the time of trial. He identified the signature of the doctor who prepared Ext.P4 certificate apart from giving evidence as to the nature of injuries suffered by the injured. The medical evidence tendered as under Ext.P4 certificate proved through PW6 corroborating the prosecution case was found credible and trustworthy by the courts below, to found a conviction against the accused for the offence under Section Crl. R.P No.187 OF 2002 3 324 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the imputation made against the accused over the criminal trespass committed in the building of PW2, that was also found established by the evidence of the injured (PW1) and the witnesses (PW2 & PW3). 4. Conviction of the accused on the basis of the materials as aforesaid tendered by the prosecution is impeached by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contending that the weapon of offence was not recovered and produced before the court. The witnesses examined to sustain the prosecution case are close relatives, though it was alleged that during the course of the assault the injured had warded off a strike from the chopper with a table fan and it was damaged, that fan was not produced before the court, and, also, that Ext.P3 mahazar prepared over the scene of crime does not indicate any features of any drop of blood at the spot though the injured is stated to have suffered lacerated injuries from the strikes with a chopper. The aforesaid circumstances cause serious dent over the substratum of the prosecution case, is the submission of the counsel to contend that the conviction of the accused founded by the courts below, concurrently, suffers from serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Crl. R.P No.187 OF 2002 4 5. Perusing the materials tendered in the case, I find, the circumstances pointed out by the counsel to impeach the conviction of the petitioner/accused are hardly sufficient to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Concurrent finding of guilt entered by the two courts below against the accused is not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that there is serious infirmity in such finding, which if not corrected is likely to cause miscarriage of justice. The evidence of PW1, the injured, as regards the occurrence, was found credible and trustworthy to both the courts below. He has suffered serious injuries as noted under Ext.P4 wound certificate and two among such lacerated injuries sustained over his forehead and eye lid could be caused by striking with a chopper, is amply proved by the evidence of PW6, the doctor. Suggestive questions put to the doctor, PW6, that when a chopper is used as a weapon of offence the likelihood of causing incised injuries is more probable by itself is hardly sufficient to hold that the lacerated injuries suffered by PW1 was not with such a weapon. The doctor has opined that such injuries could also be caused by striking with a chopper. Then the only question is the merit of the ocular account tendered as to how PW1 sustained the injuries noted in Ext.P4. His version that the Crl. R.P No.187 OF 2002 5 accused who assaulted him with a chopper after committing trespass into the residential building of PW2, his brother-in-law, is corroborated by the evidence of the occupant of that house, PW2, and also PW3, the wife of the injured. Both courts have found that though they have been subjected to strenuous cross examination, nothing was brought out to doubt the intrinsic worth of the evidence given by them how PW1 sustained the injuries. The weapon of offence was not recovered and Ext.P4 scene mahazar prepared on the next day does not make any mention of any drop of blood at the spot have got innocuous value where ocular account is substantially corroborated by the medical evidence tendered in the case. There is no infirmity in the conclusion formed by the courts below to hold that the accused guilty of the offences charged against him as it is fully supported by the legal evidence tendered in the case. The accused had examined one witness as DW1, but, his evidence was only that he acted as a mediator to settle the disputes between PW1 and accused over a money transaction. His evidence was of no use to doubt the worth of the prosecution case. Both the courts have correctly found that evidence tendered through DW1 does not affect the core or substratum of the prosecution case. Conviction of the Crl. R.P No.187 OF 2002 6 accused under Sections 451 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, is only to be affirmed, and I do so. So far as the sentence imposed, the punishment awarded is found to be just and reasonable as the accused has been directed to suffer only simple imprisonment for six months each for the above offences with direction to undergo them concurrently. Maximum leniency has been extended to the accused in awarding the sentence, and it does not call for any interference or modification. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge