IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1580 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.16/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.142/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VALALIL VEEDU,UMBERNADU MURI,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP: BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1580 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. ORDER Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mavelikkara in C.C.No.142 of 2004 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Charge against him is that on 31.12.2003 at about 4.15 p.m. he wrongly restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to a boy aged three and a half years by lifting him up using a cycle chain wound around his neck. Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 and two years under Section 324 of the Code. Petitioner went up in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 but confirmed the conviction for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Code. Sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. It is contended by learned counsel that the alleged incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence of PWs 2 and 3 should not have been accepted. It is further contended by learned counsel that no injury referable to lifting the child by winding cycle chain on his neck was proved. Crl.R.P.No.1580/2009 2 2. PW1 is the first informant. He is not a witness to the incident. PWs 2 and 3 are witnesses to the incident. PW2, maternal grandmother of the child stated that on 31.12.2003 at the time of incident, she was taking the child from the anganwadi to their house. Child was walking a little behind her. From the scene of occurrence she heard the child crying and looking back she saw petitioner lifting the child with a cycle chain wound over the neck of the child. PW2 raised alarm. Hearing the cry PW3, a neighbour came to the scene of occurrence. Petitioner ran away with the cycle chain. Neighbour who came there applied oil on the neck of the child and massaged. Child was then taken to the hospital. PW3 stated that hearing the cry he came to the place of occurrence and found the child being lifted by the petitioner with the cycle chain wound on his neck. Petitioner ran away from the scene with the cycle chain. PW4 is an attestor in Ext.P2, mahazar for scene of occurrence. PW5 examined the child on the date of occurrence at 5.45 p.m. and issued Ext.P3. History and alleged cause of injury stated is that at 3.45 p.m., a person lifted the child with cycle chain wound around the neck. PW5 found a contusion on the neck but no other external injury. He stated that the injury could be caused as alleged. In cross examination PW5 stated that the contusion was on the front side. Crl.R.P.No.1580/2009 3 3. Evidence of PWs 2 and 3 cannot be discarded for the reason that no other neighbours had witnessed the incident. I do not find reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. Mere fact that they are relatives of the child is no reason to disbelieve them. It was suggested to PW2 that she had some cases with petitioner. She denied that. Apart from a bald suggestion, nothing is brought out to disbelieve version of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the incident. This is not a case of forcibly implicating the petitioner. Suggestion put to PW2 is that petitioner, on account of his love and affection lifted the child with hand and in that process nail marks were caused on the neck. PW5 noted contusion on the neck of the child and according to him that injury could be caused as alleged. History and alleged cause of injury stated by PW5 is that child was lifted with cycle chain wound around his neck. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the version of PW5. Thus the evidence of PW5 and Ext.P3 corroborate the version of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the incident. Courts below appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner guilty under Section 324 of the Code. There is no reason to interfere. 4. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, I have to bear in mind that petitioner caused hurt to a three and a half year old child. I do not find reason to show further leniency to the petitioner in the circumstances Crl.R.P.No.1580/2009 4 where, without any provocation whatsoever he has caused hurt to a helpless child. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.4780 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks