IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 894 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.7/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.356/1998 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- MATHEW CHACKO, S/O CHACKO AGED 36 YEARS POOTHERA VEETTIL, THEKKEMURI WARD NO.6 NEDUMUDY BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.S.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.894 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.356/1998 of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ramankary and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.7/2000 of Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. He was convicted under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in revision challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. The case of prosecution as testified by PWs 1 to 2 before the trial court was that on July 22, 1998 at about 6.45 p.m. , PW1 a worker and PW2 a lineman of KSEB who were on duty at Champakulam office cut and removed a plantain leaf which was touching the electric line belonging to the accused in ward No. 6 of Nedumudy Panchayath and that the accused got angry and fisted PW1 on his left side of his chest and hit PW2 on his head causing injuries to them mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates and thereby Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. 3. When the accused appeared before the trial court, he pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 353 of IPC. PWs 1 to 7 were examined on the side of prosecution and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. PWs 1 and 2 are the injured and defacto complainants. PW3 is the independent eye witness to the incident who turned hostile. PW 4 is the Sub Engineer attached to the office of Champakulam who would say that PWs 1 and 2 were on official duty at the time of incident. PW5 is the medical officer attached to Govt. Hospital, Champakulam who treated PWs 1 and 2 and issued wound certificates - Exts.P2 and P3. PW 6 is the attester to Ext.P4 mahazer . PW 7 is the Head Constable who on receipt of intimation from the hospital went there and recorded Ext.P1 FI statement. PW 8 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nedumudy Police station who registered the FIR. He conducted investigation and laid the charge before the trial court. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid. The appellate court confirmed the said conviction and sentence. 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 which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is excessive or unduly harsh ? 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no evidence to show that PWs 1 and 2 were on official duty at the time of incident and on that ground alone, the accused has to be acquitted. 7. There is only the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to prove the incident. I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The trial court as well as the appellate court has chosen to believe their evidence. I find no special reasons to disagree with their findings. Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers Further PWs 1 and 2 sustained corresponding injuries on their body as revealed from Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates issued by PW 5 , the Doctor who treated them. 8. Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there is no evidence to show that Pws.1 and 2 were on official duty at the time of the incident and that the incident occurred at 6.45 p.m. So there is no merit in the above contention. PW.4, the Sub Engineer attached to Champakkulam KSEB Office, who testified that on July 22, 1998 he had given duty to them to repair the electric line of Kanapra, Nadubhagom and Thekkemuri. He further stated that the duty of Pws.1 and 2 will be over only when they finish the work assigned to them. The Investigating Officer, PW.8, has also testified that he verified the record kept in the Champakkulam KSEB Office. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has chosen to believe their evidence and found that Pws.1 and 2 were on official duty at the time of the incident. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. That being so, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court are justified in accepting the evidence adduced on the side of the Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers prosecution and finding that on July 22, 1998 at 6.45 p.m. the accused assaulted Pws.1 and 2 who are electrical workers and were on official duty, causing injuries described in Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates and thereby committed offences punishable under sec.353 of IPC. I have gone through the judgment of the judgment of the trial court as well as that of the lower appellate court. I find no error or illegality in the judgment of both the courts below. That being so, the conviction of the revision petitioner under sec.353 of IPC has to be confirmed. 9. As regards the sentence, the trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 353 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed by the accused and the fact that the incident occurred on 22.07.1998 and that the accused and PW 1 are neighbours, I feel that a sentence of fine of Rs. 3,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 353 of IPC is confirmed. Sentence is modified to the sentence of fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount, if released shall be paid to PWs 1 and 2 in equal shares as compensation as provided under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.894/01 Page numbers