Kerala High Court
Jayarajan @ Kunjumon vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1398 of 2003
-------------------------------
JUDGMENT IN CRA 85/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I,
KOTTAYAM DATED 28-03-2003
JUDGMENT IN CC 245/1997 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,
KOTTAYAM DATED 19-02-2001
--------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1 :-
----------------------------------------------
JAYARAJAN @ KUNJUMON, S/O.OUSEPH,
MATTANCHERIL VEEDU, NIRAMATTAM BHAGOM,
KUZHIPPURAYIDAM KARA,
MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV.SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-
--------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March 2018
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in C.C. No.245/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. He and his father faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation that at about 10 a.m. on 4.3.1996, they assaulted their neighbours Jayasree and Suja, and inflicted grievous injury on the body of Jayasree and simple injuries on the body of Suja with weapons. The motive alleged by the prosecution is previous enemity due to some property dispute. The accused and the victims are neighbours. The police registered the crime on the F.I.Statement given by the victim Jayasree. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The MO1 weapon of offence was also identified by the material witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003 -: 2 :- examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries in a fall, and not in an incident of assault. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses.
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 326 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.2.2001, the two accused approached the Court of Session, Kottayam with Crl.A. No.85/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam found the 2nd accused not guilty. Accordingly, he was acquitted, and the conviction and sentence against him was set aside. But the conviction and sentence against the 1st accused was confirmed in appeal, and accordingly, his appeal was dismissed. Now, he is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. On a perusal of the materials, and on hearing the parties, I find no scope for interference in the findings, or the Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003 -: 3 :- conviction made by the courts below against the 1 st accused, on the ground of any illegality or irregularity. Of the seven witnesses examined in the trial court, PW1 is the first informant, who sustained grievous injury in the alleged incident, and PW2 is her sister, who sustained simple injuries. PW3 is a close neighbour, who witnessed the incident. The two injured were examined at the hospital by PW4, and he proved Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. The Ext.P2 wound certificate shows that PW1 had sustained a compound fracture of left tibia, but PW2 had only an abraded contusion 1 x 1 cm on the right forearm. The prosecution case is that the grievous injury on the body of PW1 was inflicted by the 1st accused with an iron pipe, and the simple injury on the body of PW2 was inflicted by the 2 nd accused with a stick. Any way, the 2nd accused stands acquitted in appeal.
5. PW1 and PW2, the two victims of offence have given definite evidence proving the incident of assault. They are well supported and corroborated by PW3, who is a neighbour to both the parties. PW2 has no special reason to give evidence in favour of the victims, or against the accused. The defence has no case that PW3 has any special reason to depose against the accused, she being a neighbour to both the parties.
Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003-: 4 :-
6. The evidence given by PW1 and PW2 is that while they were sitting inside the house, the two accused pelted stones on the house, and for fear of damage to the house, they came out and ran through the nearby rubber estate. They were followed by the two accused, and at the adjacent rubber estate of Kunjumon, the 1st accused beat on the leg of PW1 with an iron pipe, due to which, she sustained a severe injury, and the 2 nd accused beat PW2 with a stick. When the neighbours rushed to the scene, the two accused ran off and escaped with the weapons. The evidence of PW3 is that she had seen PW1 and PW2 running through the adjacent estate, being chased by the two accused. At the rubber estate, the 1 st accused beat PW1 on the leg with an iron pipe, and the 2nd accused beat PW2 with a stick. The defence could not bring out anything in the cross examination of these three witnesses to discredit their evidence, or to create any doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW1 is fully consistent with her versions in the Ext.P1 F.I.Statement, and she is well corroborated on all material aspects by PW2 and PW3. The medical evidence given by PW4 read along with the Exts.P2 and P3 certificates would also show that PW1 had sustained compound fracture of her left Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003 -: 5 :- tibia, and PW2 had sustained simple injuries. I find no reason to disbelieve PW1 to PW3, or to reject their evidence on facts. I find that infliction of grievous injury on the body of PW1 by the 1 st accused with MO1 iron pipe stands well proved in this case.
7. Now the question of sentence. The trial court imposed a jail sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326 IPC, and the appellate court confirmed it. It appears that what actually lead to the incident is some long standing property dispute between the parties. Of course, the dispute will not condone, or justify the acts of assault made by the accused. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that rigorous imprisonment for six months will be the adequate sentence in this case, and in lieu of such modification and reduction, the accused can be directed to make payment of adequate amount of compensation to the victim.
In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC in C.C. No.245/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam is confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. But the revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC, and he is acquitted of the said offence. The Crl.R.P. No.1398 of 2003 -: 6 :- conviction and sentence against him under Section 324 IPC will stand set aside. However, the jail sentence imposed by the court below under Section 326 IPC will stand reduced and modified to rigorous imprisonment for six months. In lieu of such modification and reduction, the revision petitioner is directed under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C. to pay a compensation of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to PW1. In case of failure in making payment of compensation, the revision petitioner will have to undergo a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to serve out the modified sentence, and make payment of 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 to enforce the default sentence.
Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/20.3.2018