Trial court's conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 20,000 with default imprisonment of two months.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No. 26 of 2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track Court (Adhoc – II) Kottayam has come up with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, by the said court finding that he has committed offence punishable under Section 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. The points arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the trial court went wrong in finding that the accused/appellant committed offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC?
2. If the verdict would require interference?
3. The order to be passed?

4. Tracing the genesis of the prosecution case, it is discernible that Crime No. 425 of 2005 of Chingavanam police station was registered, and on investigation, final report was filed on the allegation that the accused/appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506(1) and 308 of IPC.

5. The prosecution case as extracted in paragraph No. 2 of the trial court judgment reads as follows:-

Both the accused and the defacto- complainant Sahadevan, were residing in "Raja Quarters" near Ashramam School, Kurichy. Formerly, they were friends. Subsequently, the accused was opposed by the de facto complainant Sureshkumar for his activity of selling foreign liquor brought from Goa; as the sale was conducted from the front side of the house of Sureshkumar. The two houses of the accused and Sureshkumar are facing each other in the quarters. On 19.11.2005, Sureshkumar, who is running a toddy shop, came to his house for taking meals and was just opening the door of his house as there was none else in that house. When the accused, telling that he would not permit him to live, fisted on his back. Immediately, Sureshkumar left the place on his bike and stopped it near the gate of Raja Quarters and called his friend Shaji, who is running a bakery on the opposite side of the road. Shaji came, and to him, Sureshkumar was telling about the assault by the accused. At that time, the accused came from the backside of Sureshkumar, took a piece of mettle from the road side and hit on the backside of the head of Sureshkumar with it. Feeling giddiness, Sureshkumar was about to fall on the road, but he was supported by Shaji, who took him to Mandiram hospital first, and since the doctor was not available, from there to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

6. On commission of this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1) and 308 of IPC, and recorded evidence. PWs 1 to 7 examined, Exts. P1 to P4 and MO1 stone were marked on the side of the prosection. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and provided an opportunity to the accused to adduce defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was adduced. The learned Sessions Judge, addressed the question as to whether the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 308 as well as 506(1) of IPC, and finally it was found that the accused did not commit offences under Sections 308 and 506(1) of IPC and found commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

7. While challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant pointed out that only minor injury was sustained, as deposed by PW7– the Doctor in support of Ext.P4 wound cert