The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corresponding injuries to support a conviction under a specific section of the IPC, and the significance of considering the nature of the crime, antecedents of the petitioner, and the period of its commitment in modifying the sentence.

This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.292/03 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special) Kottayam, for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 341 of the IPC. Petitioner was accused in C.C. No.16/1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom and he was convicted under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 341 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder and against that he preferred the above appeal, where the conviction under Section 324 IPC was set aside.

2. The prosecution allegation was that on 24.12.1988 at 11.30 p.m. the revision petitioner wrongly restrained PW1 at Chamakkala church junction and twisted his left hand, thereafter beat on the head with a torch and kicked on his belly. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was admitted in the hospital. On the basis of information, Kaduthuruthy police registered a Crime No.361/98 and after investigation laid charge before court.

3. To prove the offence, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and admitted Ext.P1 to P6 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. The trial court after analyzing the evidence convicted him.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that there was no medical evidence to attract the offence under Section 323 IPC, and a wrong appreciation was made by the courts below. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the above contention and contended that revision petitioner voluntarily caused grievous hurt and thereby a serious crime was committed, no interference is necessary in the sentence.

5. While appreciating the arguments advanced by both the counsel, I have considered what offences were proved by the prosecution in the trial court. In order to attract offence under Section 325 IPC, prosecution has to prove that revision petitioner voluntarily caused hurt and hurt caused was grievous one. In order to prove the allegation of voluntarily causing hurt, PW1 was examined at the trial court and evidence shows that on 24.12.1998 at 11.30 p.m., while he was proceeding from the church after making Christmas Crib, the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained him. When PW1 proceeded further through the road, the revision petitioner obstructed his bicycle and prevented him from moving to any direction. Thereafter, he twisted the left hand of PW1 which caused dislocation of left shoulder, thereafter beat on the head of PW1 with a torch and kicked on his belly. He identified the revision petitioner in the street light. PW2 supported the evidence of PW1, identified the accused and narrated the story. He was present at the place of occurrence and saw the incident in the electric light. PW2 is the close relative of PW1 is not a ground to discard his evidence. From the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained PW1 and assaulted him. The other witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW5 did not support the prosecution case.

6. In this back drop, I have considered the medical evidence of PW6, the Doctor, who examined the injured and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. In Ext.P2, the doctor noticed the dislocation of left shoulder which was confirmed in X-ray examination. But he did not notice any injury on head or in the belly. Therefore the corresponding injuries to attract offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC were not noticed in Ext.P2 wound certificate.

7. There was no allegation of any default in the investigation. PW3 attested Ext.P3 mahazar. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy recorded the statement of PW1 and registered the case. Ext.P4 is the FIR. Analysing the oral and documentary evidence in this case, it is found that offence under Section 325 IPC alone is proved. The first appellate court failed to appreciate that position. Therefore the conviction under Section 323 IPC, is to be set aside. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case coupled with the cond