IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 236 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRA.370/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II) KASARAGOD CC.341/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANA POOJARY, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.KOTI POOJARI, KALANJA HOUSE, MOODAMBAIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. KRISHNA POOJARI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KOTI POOJARI, KALANJA HOUSE, MOODAMBAIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.236 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.341 of 1999 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod. They were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Sentence awarded was only imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.25,000/- each. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of their common intention, grievous hurt was caused to PW1 by cutting with a chopper at about 4 p.m. on 28.3.1999. Revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and identified MOs 1 and 2. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The case of the revision petitioners was that PW1 sustained injuries not from their hands but in a road traffic accident and utilising that opportunity a false case was foisted. Learned Magistrate, after proper appreciation of evidence, found that grievous hurt was caused to PW1 as proved by Ext.P2, wound certificate, Ext.P5, discharge summary and the evidence of Pws 4 and 7, the doctors. The petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Court, Kasargod in Crl. Appeal CRRP 236/2009 2 370 of 2003. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that there is a delay of three days in filing the F.I.R and the delay was not properly explained and the mother of PW1, who was admittedly present at the time of the incident, was not examined and on the evidence Courts below should not have convicted the revision petitioner. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PW2, his wife. Though it was argued that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not have been believed, both the Courts appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. 5. Though it was argued that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., the incident occurred at about 4 p.m. on 28.3.1999. Ext.P2 wound certificate establish that petitioner was CRRP 236/2009 3 taken to the hospital immediately and he was later shifted to Mangalore and was treated by PW7. In such circumstances the delay in lodging F.I.R is not fatal. On going through the judgments I find no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the conviction as it is clearly proved that grievous hurt was caused to PW1 by the accused with a chopper, in furtherance of their common intention. Conviction of revision petitioners for the offence under section 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal. Though learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners argued that the sentence is to be modified reducing the fine, in fact the sentence was on the lower side. When revision petitioners were convicted for the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, Courts below should not have awarded a flee bite sentence. But as the State did not challenge the sentence, I do not find it necessary to take suo motu revision for enhancement of sentence. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb