Kerala High Court
Sathyan vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1592 of 2002
---------------------------------
CRL.APPEAL NO. 309/2000 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
DATED 16-10-2002
.....
CC NO. 798/1995 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, ALUVA
DATED 10-07-2000
.....
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SATHYAN, S/O. MADHAVAN,
PADUVALLINCHERIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
KANIYANKKUNNUBHAGOM,
EAST KODUNGALLOOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 25th March, 2014
O R D E R
The accused in C.C No.798 of 1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, challenges the conviction and sentence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, on dismissal of the appeal filed by him before the Court of Session, Ernakulam as Crl.A No.309 of 2000.
2. The prosecution case is that at about 9.15 p.m. on 16.1.1994, the revision petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant Sivan at the courtyard of his house and inflicted serious injuries on his body with a chopper, due to some personal enmity. Immediately, the de facto complainant Sivan was taken to the hospital, where he gave First Information Statement to the Police. On the basis of the said statement, the Police registered a crime, and after investigation, the Police submitted final report before the Court of the learned Magistrate under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The weapon of offence was seized during investigation, and was produced in Court.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 2 framed against him by the learned Magistrate under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts. P1 to P6. The weapon of offence was identified and marked as MO1 and the Dhothy of the injured was identified and marked as MO2. Some contradictions in the statements given by PW2 were marked on the defence side as Exts. D1 and D2. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, the accused denied the incriminating materials and circumstances.
4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur concurred with the findings of the trial court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by judgment dated 16.10.2002. Now, the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. Of the 11 witnesses examined in the trial court. PW1 is the de facto complainant, who sustained grievous Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 3 injuries in the alleged incident of assault. PWs 2 to 5 are the incident witnesses examined by the prosecution. Of them, PW2 and PW3 supported the prosecution, but the other witnesses turned hostile. PW2 is the father of the injured and PW3 is his wife. PWs 6 and 7 had not in fact witnessed the incident as such. Their evidence is that when they came to the scene of incident, they saw PW1 lying at the court yard with some injuries. PW8 is the Doctor who examined the injured at the hospital and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. PW9 is only an attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW10 is the Head Constable who registered the crime and investigated it and PW11 is the Police Officer who verified the investigation and laid the charge. Thus, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the medical evidence of PW8 to prove the prosecution case.
6. On a perusal of the evidence given by the material witnesses, I find that they have given definite evidence proving the incident of assault alleged by the prosecution. It was submitted by the learned counsel that there is some material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. I find no contradiction which is very material in this case. The evidence given by the injured is well Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 4 consistent with his statements in Ext.P1. The incident happened at about 9.15 p.m. and all the witnesses are consistent that they witnessed the incident, and also identified accused and the weapon in electric light. This particular aspect stands not effectively challenged.
7. All the material witnesses have well identified the weapon of offence marked as MO1 during trial. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the prosecution has no explanation for not producing the blood stained shirt of the de facto complainant. This is not a case where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to prove the case. When all the material witnesses have given definite evidence regarding the actual incident of assault and infliction of injury with a weapon, and when all the witnesses have identified the accused and the weapon of offence during trial, it is of no consequence at all that the prosecution has not produced the blood stained shirt.
8. The evidence of the Doctor, and also Ext.P2 wound certificate will show that PW1 had sustained serious injuries in the incident of assault. He was examined by the Doctor at 10.15 p.m on 16.1.1994 itself. On examination the Doctor, found an incised wound on the right forehead Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 5 of PW1, 13x1 cm in length, extending from between both the eye brows to the right parietal region, another incised wound on the left middle finger 3 x .5 cm, a third incised wound 3 x 1 cm on the left ring finger, and a 4th one 3.5x.5 cm on the right parietal region. X-ray investigation revealed fracture of fronto- parietal bone.
9. On an appreciation of the ocular and medical evidence, I find that the prosecution has well proved the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Infliction of injuries including fracture of right fronto- parietal bone with a corresponding long incised wound of 13 cms, with MO1 chopper, by the revision petitioner, stands well proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. I find no scope for interference in the findings of the courts below on facts and I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the findings of the courts below or in the conviction entered by the courts below.
10. In the above circumstances, this revision petition is only to be dismissed. The sentence imposed by the trial court in this case is rigorous imprisonment for one year. In appeal, the appellate court did not interfere in the sentence imposed by the trial court. The incident happened in Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 6 January, 1994 and now we are in 2014. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the revision petitioner has some psychic problem, and the learned counsel also showed some prescriptions. Of course, there is nothing to show that he had any such problem in January, 1994, He developed such problems at the middle of 1995, and it is not known whether he has been continuing effective treatment for such a psychic problem. Anyway, considering the long lapse of 20 years, since the date of incident, I find the necessity of some modification in sentence by way of reduction, but the revision petitioner will have to compensate the injured reasonably for such benefit. In the circumstances discussed above, I feel that 1/3rd of the jail sentence imposed by the trial court will be the adequate sentence in this case, when the revision petitioner can adequately compensate the injured. I feel that an amount of 15,000/- will be the adequate amount of compensation. Subject to this modification, by reducing the jail sentence, and adding compensation to jail sentence, this revision petition can be dismissed, confirming the conviction under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed Crl.R.P No.1592 of 2002 7 confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code in C.C. No.798 of 1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, however, subject to the modification in sentence to the effect that the jail sentence imposed by the trial court will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four months. In lieu of reduction in sentence, the revision petitioner is hereby directed under Section 357 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to pay a compensation of 15,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months, to PW1, who sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident of assault. The revision petitioner is given 30 days time to surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, the trial court shall initiate coercive steps to enforce the sentence and to recover the amount of compensation or enforce the default sentence.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/