IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2853 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA. (JAIL) NO. 551/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.323/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------------- SASHEENDRAN, C.NO.3910, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BANI.P.(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2853 of 2007 ==================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 323 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur for an offence punishable under Sections 326 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 08.05.2002, at 6 a.m. on account of the previous enemity towards PW2 with regard to immovable property, the accused assaulted PW2 with MO1 chopper whereby PW2 sustained a fracture on his right arm and serious injuries on his head. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in CRL.R.P. NO. 2853/2007 :2: support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and one chopper as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 19.09.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Even though the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Thalassery as Cr. Appeal (Jail) No. 551 of 2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 21.02.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 2853/2007 :3: 6. I heard Adv. Shri. Bani P, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on State Brief and Adv. Shri. P. Ravindra Babu, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following:- PW2 who is the father of PW1 (the first informant) was on the fateful day (08.05.2002) proceeding to the paddy field at about 6 a.m. When PW2 had covered about 20 meters from his house towards the paddy field, the accused suddenly emerged with MO1 chopper and assaulted PW2 who sustained a fracture on his right forearm and injuries on his head. PW2 fell down at the paddy field. 8. The version of PW2 was supported by PWs 1 and 3 who are respectively the daughter and the worker of PW2. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction recorded by the courts below, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction which accordingly confirmed. CRL.R.P. NO. 2853/2007 :4: 7. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner also cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate, having regard to the unprovoked and sudden aggression by the revision petitioner on PW2 with a chopper. I therefore do not find any good ground to interfere with the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as well. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv