IMPORTANT POINTS
The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioner had caused voluntarily hurt to PW1 with a dangerous weapon and committed the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and rightly convicted him for the said offence and the concurrent findings of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference at the hands of this court.

ORDER :

1. Accused in CC.704/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The revision petitioner was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta police station in Crime No.348/2003 under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 25.8.2003, at about 7.15 pm, the revision petitioner with an intention to cause voluntarily hurt to PW1, stabbed PW1 with a knife a dangerous weapon just below the chest at a place appearing like as a slab fixed with cement situated adjacent to the steps starting from the Nadakkal Mullapra road towards the Aryasseril house on the north of the road at Keeriyathottam bagom of Nadakkal kara of Erattupetta village and thereby he had committed the above said offence.

4. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as CC.704/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta. When the revision petitioner appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was framed, and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution’s evidence. He had further stated that at about 8.00 p.m on the same day, PW1 trespassed into the front yard of the residence of the revision petitioner abused him and hit him with the torch on his head and cheek and when the mother of the revision petitioner tried to resists the acts of PW1, she was also manhandled by PW1 and there was some scuffle occurred between them in which both of them fell down and rolled down through the steps and sustained injuries and he never inflicted any injury on the injured. Except marking Ext.D1, no other evidence was adduced on his side in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is further ordered that if the fine amount is realised, an amount of Rs.2000/- to be paid to PW1 as compensation under section 357(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the same he filed Crl.Appeal No.654/2005 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, which was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal in part, confirming the order of conviction, but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner-accused before the court below.

5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there was a counter case registered as Crime No.353/2003 of Erattupetta police station, which was also pending before the same court as CC.No.740/2003 in respect of the same incident. But both the cases were not tried together and the same Assistant Public Prosecutor had conducted the other case also and thereby serious prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner. These aspects have not been considered by the courts below properly. Further, the weapon of offence alleged to have been used for the commission of the offence has not been recovered. The possibility of causing injury to PW1, by falling on a granite stone was in away probabalis