IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 444 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.183/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.528/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- SUDARSHANAN ALIAS SUDHAN, S/O. KARUPPAN, ANANDAMPARAMBU VEEDU, AROOR, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.G.MAHESH KUMAR SMT.KADEEJA BEEVI.P RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 444 of 2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2094/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.444/2001 DISMISSED 16.9.2008 SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE BKN/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P.No. 444 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R On the final report submitted by PW7, the Sub Inspector, the revision petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Penal Code the charge being that on 10.11.95 at about 6.30 p.m., while PW1; the defacto complainant was walking through a Panchayat road situated towards the southern side of the house of the revision petitioner carrying a 11 month old child, the revision petitioner emerged there and beat the defacto complainant and the child with a stick causing hurt to them. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The conviction was confirmed but the sentence was modified as fine of Rs.5,000/-. The revision petitioner challenges the judgments of the courts below in this revision petition. 2. Since the revision petitioner and counsel remained absent, I Crl.R.P.No.444/2001 -:2:- did not have the occasion to hear them. Hearing the parties/counsel in revision, is only optional under Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. It is contended in the revision petition that there is no acceptable evidence to hold that the revision petitioner committed any offence as alleged. 4. That, PW1 and the child aged about 11 months, suffered hurt on the relevant day is proved by Exts.P4 and P5. Since the medical officer who examined PW1 and the child had issued the said certificates was not available for examination, the certificates were proved through PW6. 5. PWs 1, 2 and 4 have given evidence regarding the alleged incident. They, in an unmistakable terms stated that the revision petitioner assaulted PW1 and the child with him, with a stick. According to PW4, revision petitioner threw away the stick after the incident. 6. The version of the revision petitioner is that the incident occured at his house. On the relevant day PW1 and another person trespassed into the house and attacked the revision petitioner and Crl.R.P.No.444/2001 -:3:- his wife. Revision petitioner examined DW1 who claimed to have witnessed such an incident. 7. It is true that in Ext.P5 the history and alleged cause of injury to the child is stated as at the hands of the revision petitioner and his wife but there is no such case for the prosecution. But, merely on the strength of that statement in Ext.P5, the case of the prosecution cannot thrown out since it is not clear who had given the history and alleged cause of injury as stated in Ext.P5. So far as the evidence of DW1 is concerned, it has come in evidence that himself and revision petitioner are thick friends and that there was some boundary dispute involving the younger brother of DW1 and the family of PW1 which of course according to DW1, was settled in the mediation by the member of the local Panchayat. Suffice to say that DW1 is interested the revision petitioner. As rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the incident occurred in the manner suggested by the revision petitioner. Moreover, it is difficult to think that PW1 carrying a 11 month old child would have gone to the house of the revision petitioner to took up a quarrel even at the risk of the child sustaining injury as proved by Crl.R.P.No.444/2001 -:4:- Ext.P5. The courts below have placed proper reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 4 and found that revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 324 of the Penal Code. No interference is warranted. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb