IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1057 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.324/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA CRA.68/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- LALIMON @ LALI, AGED 31 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, THAKIDIVELIL HOUSE WARD NO. IX, MARARIKULAM THEKKU PANCHAYATH BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1057 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October , 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.324/1994 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Alappuzha and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.68/2000 of Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha. He was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the trial court. The lower appellate court confirmed his conviction, but modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The lower appellate court ordered to pay the fine amount, if realised, to PW1 as compensation. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence was that on March 19, 1994 at about 6.10 A.M. at Kalavoor in ward No.IX of Mararikulam grama panchayat, the revision petitioner/ accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by cutting him with a sickle which is a dangerous weapon on the right wrist and left arm of PW1 and thereby Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 3. The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 324 of IPC. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution before the trial court. When questioned by the learned Magistrate under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the entire incident. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. The lower appellate court confirmed his conviction, but modified the sentence as aforesaid. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner by the trial court under Section 324 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers Point No.1 6. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued that there is delay in sending the FIR to court and that on that ground alone, the accused has to be acquitted. 7. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked before the trial court to prove the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the injured. He testified in terms of the case of the prosecution. I have gone through his evidence. Nothing was brought out during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. He has sustained very serious injuries on the right wrist. It was not suggested during cross examination that the said injuries were self inflicted. Further his evidence is supported by PW3 his wife on all material particulars. Therefore, the lower court is perfectly justified in believing his evidence regarding the incident. 8. PW2 is the brother-in-law of the revision petitioner. He has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW3 is the wife of PW1. She supported PW1 on all material particulars. The counsel for revision petitioner argued that PW3 being the wife of PW1, her Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers evidence should not be believed. I am unable to agree. Merely on that ground alone, in my view the evidence of PW3 cannot be brushed aside. Her evidence was not shaked in cross examination. Therefore, the lower court and the appellate court are justified in believing her evidence. PW4 is the attester to the scene mahazer Ext.P2. PW5 is the then S.I. of Police , Alappuzha north Police Station who recorded the statement of PW 1 - Ext.P1 and registered the FIR. He conducted investigation in this case. PW7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North Police Station who laid the charge before the lower court. PW6 is the Doctor who treated PW1 and issued the wound certificate - Ext.P7. A perusal of Ext.P7 shows that PW1 sustained very serious injuries on the right wrist. 9. It was pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioner that there is delay in sending the FIR to court which has caused prejudice to the accused. I am unable to agree. The incident occurred on 19-03-1994 and it is seen from Ext.P3 that it reached the court on 23-03-1994. Merely on account of the said delay, I feel that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 cannot be brushed aside. The trial court as Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers well as lower appellate court has chosen to believe their evidence. That apart, Ext.P7 the would certificate and the evidence of PW6 the doctor shows that PW1 was examined by PW6 on 19-03-1994 itself. Further is not shown before me what is the prejudice caused to the accused by the said delay. For all these reasons, I am inclined to hold that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in believing the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and coming to the conclusion that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries described in Ext.P7 wound certificate on 19-03-1994 at about 6.10 a.m. as alleged by PW1. It follows that the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 324 of IPC rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal has to be upheld. Point No.2 10. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year which is modified by the lower appellate court to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- The incident happened in 1994 i.e. 14 years ago. Further the accused and PW1 are neighbours. But PW1 sustained serious Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers injuries on the right wrist. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 324 of IPC by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is upheld. But, the sentence imposed by the trial court which is modified by the lower appellate court is further modified to the effect that the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on or before 30-11-2009 to receive the sentence. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1057/2001 Page numbers