Kerala High Court
Rajendran S/O. Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 395 of 2003
------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN CRA 73/1994 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
DATED 11.11.2002
JUDGMENT IN SC 88/1991 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
DATED 12.8.1994
------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S) :-
--------------------------
1. RAJENDRAN S/O. NARAYANAN,
KALLAYIL MEPPURATHU VEEDU, ALIMUKKU,
KARIKULAM MURI, RANNY PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE.
2. SURESH, S/O. NARAYANAN,
KALLAYIL MEPPURATHU VEEDU, ALIMUKKU,
KARIKULAM MURI, RANNY PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE.
3. SUNIL, S/O.NARAYANAN,
KALLAYIL MEPPURATHU VEEDU, ALIMUKKU,
KARIKULAM MURI, RANNY PAAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S) :-
---------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHITTAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March 2018
ORDER
The revision petitioners herein are the three accused in S.C. No.88/1991 of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta. They faced prosecution before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, on the allegation that at about 9 p.m. on 2.9.1990, in front of the shop of one Purushan at Madamon, they assaulted one Asokan and his friends Sadanandan and Sajikumar, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on their body with weapons like knife, stick, etc. in an attempt on their life, as part of their common design to attack them due to political animosity. The police registered the crime on the F.I.Statement given by the injured Asokan, and after investigation, submitted final report in court. All the three accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution examined ten witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P13 documents in the trial court. When examined Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 2 :- under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that PW1, PW2 and Sajikumar probably sustained injuries in a scuffle that ensued there. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on their side. These are the contradictions in the statements given by the material witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 307 IPC, and they were acquitted of the said offence. But, they were found guilty under Sections 324 and 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 326 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 12.8.1994, the accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with Crl.A. No.73/1994. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence under Section 326 IPC. The sentence under Section 324 IPC was maintained, but the jail Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 3 :- sentence under Section 326 IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Now the accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
5. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason or ground for interference in the findings and the conviction made by the courts below concurrently under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. I also find nothing wrong in the application of Section 34 IPC to convict the three accused under the two sections. PW1 and PW2 are the two persons, who sustained injuries in the alleged incident of assault. The third one is Sajikumar, but he was not examined by the prosecution. However, infliction of injury on the body of Sajikumar is proved by the other witnesses. The prosecution has also adduced medical evidence to prove the injury sustained by PW1, PW2 and Sajikumar. PW10 is the doctor, who proved the Exts.P11 to P13 wound certificates. Ext.P11 relates to PW1, Ext.P12 relates to the injured Sajikumar, and Ext.P13 relates to PW2. PW3 and PW4 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Of them, PW4 turned hostile, but PW3 supported the prosecution.
Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003-: 4 :-
6. First, let me see what is the medical evidence. The Ext.P11 wound certificate proved by PW10 shows that PW1 had sustained four incised wounds. Though the injured Sajikumar is not examined, the Ext.P12 wound certificate relating to him shows that he had sustained an incised wound 1.5 x .5 cms over the left side of abdomen, directed downwards and medially over the subcutaneous plain 4 cms deep, and a contusion 5 x 2 cms over the right shoulder. The Ext.P13 wound certificate relating to PW2 shows that he had sustained swelling and contusion over the middle of left upper arm, and X-Ray investigation revealed fracture of the middle of the left humerus. Thus, it stands proved that PW2 had sustained a grievous injury in the alleged incident of assault, and the other two had sustained only simple injuries. PW1 had four incised wounds on different parts of his body. The statement given by the victims before the doctor was that they were attacked at about 8 p.m., and the injuries were inflicted with a knife.
7. PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence, and he is well corroborated by PW2 and PW3. The evidence of PW1 is substantially consistent with the statements in Ext.P1 F.I.Statement. Evidence well satisfies the court that the three Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 5 :- accused in fact came in front of the shop of Purushan to attack PW1, PW2 and Sajikumar as pre-planned by them, and they were armed with weapons. The 1st accused first demanded a cigarette lighter, and when PW1 declined the request, the 2 nd accused stabbed him with a knife; not once, but thrice. When Sajikumar intervened to save PW1, the 2nd accused inflicted injuries on the body of Sajikumar with a knife. When PW2 intervened, the 3 rd accused beat him with a stick. This is how the incident happened, and this is the picture of the incident given by PW1, PW2 and PW3 before the court. The accused have no explanation how PW1, PW2 and Sajikumar sustained injuries in the incident. The defence version that they sustained injuries in a scuffle cannot be accepted because, three persons had sustained injuries on the various parts of their body, and one had sustained fracture of humerus too. Most of the injuries sustained by PW1 were incised wounds, and these injuries can be inflicted only with a sharp edged weapon. PW2 sustained fracture due to the beating with stick, by the 3rd accused. The three persons were attacked one by one by the three accused. The 1 st accused stabbed Sajikumar, the 2nd accused stabbed PW1 thrice with a knife, and the 3rd accused beat PW2 with a stick. Evidence well Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 6 :- satisfies the court that the three accused attacked the three persons, and inflicted injuries on their body with weapons as part of a common design, and as pre-planned by them. Had it not been pre-planned, the accused would not have weapons in their hands like knife, stick, etc. Their common intention is well proved by the circumstances of the offence. I find that on factual aspects, there is the clear evidence of PW1 to PW3. Though Sajikumar is not examined, infliction of injuries on his body is proved by the other witnesses, and also the medical evidence given by PW4. The prosecution evidence well satisfies the court that PW1 and Sajikumar had sustained simple injuries, including incised wounds, and PW2 had sustained fracture of humerus. The offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC are well proved by the prosecution evidence. So, I find no reason for interference on the factual aspects.
8. Now the question of sentence. The sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 324 IPC is rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and that was confirmed by the appellate court. Though the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 326 IPC, the appellate court reduced it to rigorous imprisonment for Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 7 :- two years each. The alleged incident happened in September, 1990. 27 years have elapsed since the date of incident. Political animosity is said to be the motive for the alleged incident. Though the prosecution alleged the offence under Section 307 IPC, there is no material to show the essentials of such an offence, and the accused were rightly found not guilty under the said Section by the trial court. The 1 st accused was aged 28 years, the 2nd accused was aged 19 years, and the 3 rd one was aged 17 years on the date of incident. There is nothing to show that they have any criminal antecedents. The 1 st accused must be now aged about 55 years. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects, including the long lapse of years, and also the age and circumstances of the accused, I feel it appropriate to modify and reduce the sentence further in the interest of justice. In lieu of such modification and reduction, the accused can be directed to pay some amount of compensation to PW1 and PW2. I feel that the minimum sentence in view of Section 354(4) Cr.P.C. will be the adequate sentence.
In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioners under Sections 324 and 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC in S.C. No.88/1991 is confirmed, and the revision Crl.R.P. No.395 of 2003 -: 8 :- petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the jail sentence imposed by the courts below under the two Sections will stand further modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months each. In lieu of such modification and reduction, the three revision petitioners are directed under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C. to pay a compensation of `4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) each to PW1, and the same amount (`4,000/- each) to PW2. Thus, the two witnesses will get a total compensation of `12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) each. In case of default in making payment of compensation, the revision petitioners will have to undergo a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The revision petitioners will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to serve out the modified sentence, and to make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the modified sentence, and realise the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/12.3.2018