Kerala High Court
Ouseph @ Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2008
Author: A.K.Basheer
Bench: A.K.Basheer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1075 of 2000()
1. OUSEPH @ THANKACHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :21/05/2008
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Petition No.1075 of 2000
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The trial Court found him guilty and he was accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. But in appeal the Sessions Court modified and reduced the sentence to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of two months' simple imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case in brief was that on September 20, 1993 at about 2 PM the accused had inflicted some injuries on PW1 with a knife due to some previous enmity. The police had registered the case against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 First Information Statement and Ext.P3 First Information Report. PW1, the defacto complainant deposed before the Court that the accused was inimical towards him since he had forbidden entry of the accused in his property for the purpose of cutting an Anjili tree which was sold by him to one Ismail. According to PW1 Sri.Ismail had cut the tree with the assistance of another person. The accused, because of the said enmity had way-laid the petitioner on the way leading to his residence and stabbed him with a knife. PW1 tried to ward off the attack in which he sustained injuries on the forearm and on the fingers. It was further alleged by PW1 that the accused had bitten him too. PW2 and PW3 corroborated the above version given by PW1.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that PW3 had reached the scene of occurrence admittedly after the alleged assault. It is true that PW3 did not see the actual stabbing. But he stated that he had seen PW1 lying on the ground and the accused snatching away the knife from the hands of PW1 who had admittedly caught hold of it while he was being stabbed by the accused. PW3 had also narrated the incident, more or less consistently. Having gone through the depositions of these three witnesses I do not find any reason to disbelieve them.
4. But the prosecution had failed to recover the knife which was allegedly used by the accused to inflict the wounds on PW1. In this context, it may be noticed that the accused was also admitted in the hospital along with PW1 with some injuries on the palm. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was, in fact, PW1 who was the aggressor and he had sustained the injuries in the course of the altercation which took place. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, PW1 had admitted in his chief examination itself that he and the accused were on inimical terms.
Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1 and also the fact that there was no love lost between PW1 and the accused, I am satisfied that petitioner is entitled to get some leniency in the matter of sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, while confirming the Order of conviction under Section 324 of IPC the sentence of fine is reduced. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as fine, in default of payment of which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. If the fine amount is realised Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) shall be paid to PW1. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) skr