IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1440 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.135/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR CC.667/1992 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- PAULOSE S/O CHAKKAPPAN AGED 47 PARIYADAN HOUSE PULIYANAM KARA PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.K.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ANGAMALY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1440 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.667/1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, I Aluva and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.135/199 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the trial court. His conviction is confirmed by the lower appellate court, but sentence is modified to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution before the trial court as testified by PW2, the injured was that on May 22, 1991 at about 6 p.m. due to previous enmity, the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to her by beating with MO1, the iron rod, from the road in front of the house of revision petitioner. 3. The accused on appearance before the lower court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 326 of IPC. PWs 1 to 7 were Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers examined, Exts. P1 to P7 were marked and MO1 was produced on the side of the prosecution before the trial court. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, the accused denied the incident. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on his side. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. The lower appellate court confirmed his conviction, but modified his sentence as mentioned above. The accused has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision petition. 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 326 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the lower court went wrong in believing the interested version of PWs 2 and 3 alone without corroboration from any independent witnesses as admittedly they are on enimical terms with accused. Learned Public Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers Prosecutor appearing for the State would support the judgments of both the courts below. 7. PW1 to PW 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of prosecution. PW1 is an attestor to the scene mahazer- Ext.P4 who turned hostile. PW2 is the injured and defacto complainant. She testified in terms of Ext.P2, the FI statement. She has identified the accused as the person who assaulted her and beat with iron rod and inflicted the injuries described in Ext.P7, the wound certificate. PW2 sustained a lacerated injury on the forehead and fracture of nasal bone. PW3 is the daughter of PW2 who witnessed the incident. PW4 is the then Head Constable of Angamaly Police Station who recorded Ext.P2 FI statement from the hospital and registered the FIR- Ext.P3. He prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazer. He has conducted investigation. PW5 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Angamaly Police Station who recovered MO1 iron rod allegedly used by the accused to beat PW2 as per seizure mahazer Ext.P5. PW6 is an attestor to Ext.P5 who turned hostile. PW 7 is the doctor who treated PW2 and issued the wound certificate Ext.P7. Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers 8. On going through the records, it is seen that no independent witnesses were cited by prosecution to prove the incident. But the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has chosen to believe the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the incident. I have gone through the evidence of PW 2 and 3. I find no serious discrepancies or inconsistencies in their evidence to discredit their evidence. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has discussed their evidence in detail and chosen to believe it. I find no special reasons to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the findings of trial court as well as lower appellate court that prosecution has succeeded in proving that on May 22, 1991 at about 6 p.m. accused voluntarily caused the injuries described in Ext.P7, the wound certificate to PW2 by beating with iron rod MO1. PW2 sustained fracture of nasal bone which is a grievous injury. Thus the accused has caused grievous hurt to PW2 by beating with MO1 which is a dangerous weapon, which is an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. No other point is argued before me. Therefore I uphold the conviction of the revision petitioner /accused under Section 326 of IPC Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers by the trial court which is confirmed by the lower appellate court. Point No.2 9. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months which is reduced to three months in appeal. The incident occurred in 1991. The parties are close neighbours. Taking into consideration all these facts, I feel that the substantive sentence imposed can be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone i.e . from 14/06/1991 to 17/06/2001 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Fine amount, if released shall be paid to PW2 , the injured as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Crl.P.C. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 326 of IPC by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal is upheld. The sentence is modified to the effect that substantive sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him i.e. from 14/06/1991 to 17/06/2001. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Fine amount, Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers if realised, shall be paid to PW2 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.Appeal No.1440/2001 Page numbers