The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-explanation of minor and superficial injuries sustained by the accused does not affect the prosecution's case, and such injuries may not be a ground for claiming the benefit of doubt.

ORDER :

M.R. Anitha, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioners/accused 2 and 3.

2. The prosecution case in short is as follows:

On 3.3.1996 at about 12.30 mid night at Thiruvannur Kottaram road margin, Panniankara the accused committed the offence punishable under Ss. 323 and 326, IPC read with 34, IPC. The case was registered as per the FIS given by PW2, the victim at the hospital. PW6, the head constable, attached to Panniankara police station recorded the FIS on 7.3.1996 at Medical college hospital and produced the same at the police station and on the basis of the same, PW5 another head constable registered crime No. 34/1996 originally under Ss. 323 and 324 read with S. 34, IPC. FIR is marked as Ext. P4. Thereafter PW8 another Head constable attached to Panniankara police station conducted the investigation, questioned the witnesses, prepared Ext. P3 scene mahazar and seized MO1 by describing in the scene mahazar and conducted the initial investigation. Thereafter PW7 who was the sub inspector of police attached to Panniankara police station continued the investigation of PW8 and filed Ext. P5 report altering the charge adding S. 326, IPC and filed Ext. P5 report stating the name and address of the accused and he also arrested accused 2 and 3, the revision petitioners herein. Thereafter he filed the charge sheet.

3. On the side of prosecution PW1 to 8 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked and MO1 was identified and marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, all the accused were questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to them. DW1 examined and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on the side of defence. Thereafter on hearing both sides the trial court found all the accused guilty under the sections aforementioned. The revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 750/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks under Ss. 323 read with 34, IPC and accused 1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each under Ss. 326 read with 34, IPC. Set off was also allowed under S. 428, Cr.P.C. Out of the fine amount Rs. 2500/- was directed to be paid to PW2 towards compensation under S. 357(1), Cr.P.C. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, separate appeals were filed by the revision petitioners and the first accused, as Cri. Appeal Nos. 294/2001 and 297/ 2001 respectively. As per the judgment dated 18.8.2004, the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, dismissed the Appeal filed by the first accused and the Appeal filed by the revision petitioners was allowed partly setting aside the sentence under S. 323, IPC and the conviction and sentence under S. 326, IPC had been confirmed. Against the common judgment passed, the revision petitioners alone came up in revision. On enquiry from the office it has been reported that no appeal has been filed against the judgment in Cri. Appeal 297/2001, filed by the first accused.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent and the learned public prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent. Lower court records were called for and perused. Both sides were heard.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction and sentence on various grounds. According to him, PW2 the victim alone has supported the prosecution case and PW1 who is none other than the brother of PW2 turned hostile and was cross-examined by the Assistant public prosecutor. He would also contend that though DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D2, the attested copies of wound certificates pertaining to the revision petitioners were marked, both the courts below failed to consider the aspec