IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1272 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.194/2001 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.31/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- PONNAPPAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, SOOLATHUPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAYANADUKARA, MEMURI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.MANIKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1272 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in C.C.31/1998 was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.194/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW1, the injured. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. CRRP 1272/03 2 2. Prosecution case is that on 5/12/1997 at about 11.15 a.m while PW1, the injured was walking along Soolam-Pathickal Public road, due to previous enmity petitioner stabbed PW1, on his head and inflicted injury and thereby committed the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Learned Magistrate on the evidence of PW1, the injured, with PWs.2 and 3 the eye witnesses found that petitioner inflicted injury by stabbing PW1 with a dangerous weapon. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that courts below did not CRRP 1272/03 3 properly appreciate the evidence. Argument is that contradictions in the evidence of PW1 in his version seen in Ext.P1 FI statement and from the witness box, was not properly appreciated. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PWs.2 and 3 and therefore, courts below should not have believed the prosecution case. It was argued that evidence of PW1 establishes that there was a scuffle and in such circumstances, case of the petitioner that PW1 sustained injury in the scuffle when both fell on the ground, should have been accepted and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that in any case, considering the fact that incident occurred more than 13 years, substantive sentence may be avoided. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted CRRP 1272/03 4 that both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the evidence properly and on the evidence found the petitioner guilty and there is no reason to interfere with the findings. 4. Evidence of PW6 the doctor attached to M.M.Hospital, Kolencherry establishes that he examined PW1 at 11.40 a.m on 5/12/1997 and prepared Ext.P5 wound certificate. Ext.P5 wound certificate with the evidence of PW6 establish that it was disclosed to the doctor by PW1 that he sustained injury when he was assaulted with a knife at 11.15 on the same day at Chulam mugal Piramadam and the doctor found a deep penetrating stab injury to 2 inchx3/4 inch over the left loin over elbow rest lateral to the vertical column left side and contusion on the left side. Evidence CRRP 1272/03 5 therefore establish that within one hour of sustaining injury, PW6 had examined PW1 and it was disclosed to the doctor that he sustained injury by stabbing with a knife. Ext.P1 FI statement was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector at 4 p.m on 5/12/1997 after reaching there on getting information that PW1 was admitted there as an inpatient after sustaining injuries. In Ext.P1 FI statement, PW1 had narrated the details of the incident and also named PWs.2 and 3, as persons who were present at that time. PWs.2 and 3 when examined fully supported the the prosecution case. Though PWs.2 and 3 did not witness the petitioner stabbing PW1, their evidence establish that though they did not actually witness the process of stabbing, they found the petitioner walking behind PW1 and also PW1 sustaining CRRP 1272/03 6 injury and the petitioner running away from the spot. Though learned counsel argued that evidence of PW1 should not have been believed, in view of the contradiction in the version in Ext.P1, and evidence of PWs.2 and 3 should not have been believed due to contradictions in the evidence of PW1, on going through the entire evidence, I find no reason to differ with the views taken by the courts below. Evidence establish that PW1 sustained injury when he was stabbed with a knife and it is the petitioner who stabbed PW1. Prosecution has successfully established that petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a knife, a dangerous weapon. In such circumstances, conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal. CRRP 1272/03 7 5. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Though learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year, learned Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence to three months and directed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Argument of the learned counsel is that as incident occurred in 1997 much water has flown thereafter and at this distant point of time, petitioner may not be sent to prison. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if substantive sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment for one month in addition to compensation of RS.10,000/- awarded by the learned Magistrate. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under CRRP 1272/03 8 Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.A.194/2001 is modified as follows. Petitioner/accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable to PW1 and in default further simple imprisonment for one more month. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry on 29/7/2010. Learned Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.