Motorbike can be classified as a dangerous weapon under IPC Section 324 when intentionally used to cause harm.

ORDER :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2012 in Crl.A.No.196 of 2011 on the files of the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam (for short, 'the appellate court') confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.1017 of 2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally (for short, 'the trial court').

2. The petitioner is the accused, and the 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.1017 of 2005 on the files of the trial court. The petitioner faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.

3. The petitioner and the daughter of the 2^nd respondent were admittedly in love. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11/05/2005 at about 09.20 p.m., the petitioner intentionally hit his motorbike bearing Registration No.KL-2U-7283 on the back of the 2^nd respondent while he was walking through the side of Edappallikotta Junction - Panmana Asramam public road after his duty and due to the impact of the hit, the 2^nd respondent fell and sustained injury to his lower lip. It is alleged that the petitioner did the above act since the 2^nd respondent questioned the relationship of the petitioner with his daughter,

4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.196 of 2011 before the appellate court, challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard Smt.Preetha P.S., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impeached the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court on the appreciation of evidence and resultant findings as to guilt. The learned counsel submitted that PWs 2 and 3 are interested witnesses, and the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 relied on by the trial court as well as the appellate court, is contradictory to each other. The counsel further submitted that the conviction under Section 324 of IPC is bad since the bike allegedly used to cause hurt to the 2^nd respondent is not a dangerous weapon to attract the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The learned counsel also submitted that, at any rate, the substantive sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Section 324 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and PW5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the petitioner. PW1 is the de facto complainant and the injured. PWs 2 and 3 are two independent witnesses. PW1 deposed that on 11/05/2005 at about 9.20 p.m., after his duty, he on the way to his house had alighted at Edapallikotta Junction and proceeded 10-20 feet a