Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.404/2002 on the file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.409/2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Magistrate under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days more. The fine amount, if recovered, was directed to be paid as compensation to the de facto complainant (PW2) under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On 22.2.2005, the learned Sessions Judge made over the appeal to the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) ..3..

Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta for hearing and disposal. On 29.04.2005, the appeal stood listed for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed for one month's time to argue the appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the prayer and adjourned the case as last chance to 30.6.2005. However, the associate counsel of the learned counsel for the appellant prayed time for hearing and hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to hear the learned Public Prosecutor alone and then dismissed the appeal on merits. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner has, therefore, come up before this Court in revision.

5. Pursuant to the receipt of summons from the trial court, the revision petitioner appeared through his counsel and pleaded not guilty of the charge thus levelled against him by the prosecution. In the trial that followed, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked ..5..

on the side of the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

6. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC mainly relied on the oral evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4. PW6 the Assistant Surgeon, Govt.Hospital, Pathanamthitta examined PW2 immediately after the occurrence on 06.07.2002 at 9.30 pm and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate noting fracture lateral bone of orbit on X-ray examination. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner on the strength of some of the eye witnesses.

16. Judged by the above standards, the only course open before this Court in the facts and circumstances is to remit the case to the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. If no ..14..

counsel for the accused turns up, the learned Sessions Judge is at liberty on the peculiar facts of this case to dispose of the appeal in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bani Singh's case (supra).