IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 807 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.163/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.506/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- THOMMAN ALIAS THOMAS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, KUNJERAKKATTU HOUSE, CHUNKAM BHAGOM, KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING C.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.807 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Concurrent findings entered by the courts below that revision petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 with a stone and the sentence of fine of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the learned magistrate as modified by the appellate court to Rs.2,000/- are under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel contends that there is no reliable evidence to prove the alleged incident. It is the further contention that prosecution did not produce relevant documents to prove the injury caused to PW5. 3. Case is that on 2.7.1995 at about 5.30 p.m. on the road towards the south eastern side of house No.111 in Ward No.IV of Thodupuzha Municipality, revision petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 with a stone. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6. PW1 is the attestor in Ext.P1, mahazar for scene of occurrence. PW2 though cited to prove the incident, did not support the prosecution fully. According to him, there was exchange of hot words between revision petitioner and PW5. Hearing the commotion he came to the scene of occurrence and found the revision petitioner and PW5 engaged in a tussle. He denied the suggestion that he was speaking falsehood to help the revision petitioner. PW3 who is a nephew of PW5 also refused to support the Crl.R.P.No.807/2001 2 prosecution. PW5, the defacto complainant stated that on the relevant day, time and place, revision petitioner pelted stones at his back and he fell down. Ext.P1 is the statement given to the police. PW4 examined PW5 at Government Hospital, Thodupuzha on 2.7.1995 and issued Ext.P2. PW5 had superficial abrasion on back of neck, superficial abrasion with contusion over right eye brow and multiple superficial abrasion on the back of chest. Alleged history and cause of injury stated by PW5 is that revision petitioner pelted stones and hit him with a stone on that day at 5.30 p.m. PW4 stated that the injury could be caused as alleged. PW6 conducted the investigation. 4. According to learned counsel, there was a tussle between the revision petitioner and PW5, both fell down and the revision petitioner was also admitted in the hospital for the injury he suffered. But, PW6 denied that suggestion. It is true that PW5 admitted that he had seen the revision petitioner in the hospital where himself had undergone treatment. He admitted that a case was registered against him on the statement of the revision petitioner. But, going by the version of PW6, it is revealed that neither the statement of the revision petitioner was recorded nor any case was registered. But he admitted that intimation was received that revision petitioner was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Thodupuzha. 5. Though PW4 stated that the injuries found on PW5 and noted in Ext.P2 can be caused by a fall, I am unable to accept that opinion considering the nature of the injuries. Injury No.1 as per Ext.P2 is superficial abrasion on Crl.R.P.No.807/2001 3 back of neck while injury No.3 is multiple superficial abrasions on the back of chest. Injury No.2 is a superficial abrasion with contusion over the right eye brow. Considering the nature of injuries, the contention that it was caused by a fall on the ground cannot be accepted. Assuming that revision petitioner was also admitted in the hospital, there is no evidence to show that he had sustained any injury. I stated that there is no possibility of PW5 falling down and sustaining the injuries. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of PW5 regarding the incident. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding entered by the courts below requiring interference with the conviction. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, appellate court has modified the fine to Rs.2,000/-. Revision petitioner is employed in the K.S.R.T.C. Learned counsel submits that sentence might cost him his job. Though that by itself is not sufficient to show leniency in the matter of sentence, I am persuaded to take into account the nature of injuries in considering whether further leniency is to be shown in the matter of sentence. Hence, sentence of fine is modified as Rs.1,850/-. Out of that, Rs.1,000/- will be paid to PW5 as compensation. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- Sentence of fine imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as fine of Rs.1,850/- (Rupees One thousand, eight hundred and fifty only) failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Out of fine if realized, Crl.R.P.No.807/2001 4 Rs.1,000/- will be paid as compensation to PW5. Revision petitioner is granted one month’s time to deposit the fine in the trial court. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.3745 of 2001 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.807/2001 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.807 of 2001 ORDER 4th December, 2008