IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2112 of 2009() ------------------------------------ AGAINST JUDGMENT CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN CC NO.202/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, NEDUMANGAD AS CONFIRMED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IN CRA.308/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM DTD 30.3.2009 .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, THEKKEVEEDU, V.P.V/588, CHANGA, CHANGAMURI, VELLANAD VILLAGE. 2. SUDHEESHKUMAR @ MONI, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, THEKKEVEEDU, V.P.V/508, CHANGA, CHANGAMURI, VELLANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2112 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No-III, Thiruvananthapuram in criminal appeal No.308 of 2003 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioners for offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). They faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Nedumangad in C.C.No.202 of 2000 for the said offence and under Sec.326 of the Code on the allegation that on 12-02-2000 at about 7 a.m, near Changa Milk Society they voluntarily caused hurt/grevious hurt to PW1 beating him with battons. Learned magistrate found that the charge under section 326 of the Code is not proved. Petitioners were found guilty for voluntarily causing hurt to PW1. Appellate court confirmed that finding. It is contended by learned counsel that the finding is not correct. 2. PWs.3 and 4 though examined by the prosecution to prove the incident did not support the prosecution. PW1, the injured and PW2, said to be witness to the incident testified to it. They stated that on the relevant day, time and place petitioners assaulted PW1 with battons. PW1 was taken to the hospital. PW7 examined PW1 and issued Ext.P4, wound certificate. Injuries found on PW1 are referred in Crl.R.P.No.2112 of 2009 2 Ext.P4 and extracted in para 8 of the judgment of learned magistrate. The history and alleged cause of injury stated by PW1 to PW7 is that he was assaulted by Rajendran and Manu with battons and fisted with hand. 'Rajendran' referred to in Ext.P4, it is not disputed is referring to petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is Mony. But in Ext.P4, the second name mentioned is not 'Mony' but 'Manu'. PW1 explained that at the time of giving statement to PW7, he had some stammering and it was heard by PW7 as 'Manu' (instead of 'Mony'). I am inclined to accept that explanation in the light of evidence given by PW1 regarding the incident. Petitioners are not strangers to PW1 so that, there could be a mistaken identity. PW2 also has given evidence about the incident involving the petitioners. Learned counsel states that PW2 is relative of PW1 residing about 4kms away from scene of occurrence. But, that by itself is no ground to disbelieve PW2. At any rate PW1, the injured has given evidence and identified petitioner as his assailants. Evidence of PW1 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW7 and Ext.P4. Courts below have accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the incident and found the petitioners guilty under section 324 of the Code. There is no reason to interfere. 3. Learned magistrate sentenced petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and payment of fine of Rs.2500/- each with a direction that the fine if realised will be paid to Crl.R.P.No.2112 of 2009 3 PW1 as compensation. Learned counsel requested that leniency may be shown to the petitioner. 4. It is true that battons used by petitioners are not recovered. Considering the sequence of the incident it is not as if it happened on the spur of the moment. That petitioners had went to the scene of occurrence with battons indicated that the incident was preplanned. However, considering the age of the petitioners and the nature of injuries suffered by PW1, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment for a period of three months each is sufficient in the ends of justice. The fine part of the sentence with direction for payment of compensation to PW1 is retained. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the extent that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified as simple imprisonment for three (3) months each while fine part of the sentence and direction for payment to PW1 are retained. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/