Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and precludes reappreciation of evidence unless lower court findings are perverse. The non-recovery of a weapon is not fatal to a conviction for causing hurt where credible testimony of injured witnesses is supported by consistent medical evidence.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court–II, Pathanamthitta, arising out of C.C. No. 478 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–II, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.06.2003 at about 8.40 p.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW1 to PW3 situated at Thekkuthodu Ward in Thannithodu Panchayath. It is alleged that the 1^st accused inflicted an injury on the left leg of PW3 with a chopper. Thereafter, the 2^nd accused inflicted injuries on the left upper arm, chest, and left ear of PW1 with a chopper, and the 1^st accused inflicted injuries on the lip and forehead of PW2 with a chopper. The motive alleged is previous enmity arising from the marriage of the sister of the accused with PW3, which was a love marriage. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, found the 2^nd accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicted him. The case against the 1^st accused was split up and refiled. 2^nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 324 read with . In default of payment of the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. For the offence under Section 447, the 2^nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. It was also ordered that, if the fine amount is realised, Rs. 1,000/- each shall be paid to PW1 and PW2 and Rs. 500/- to PW3 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track–II, Pathanamthitta, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/2nd accused. Aggrieved thereby, the 2^nd accused has preferred the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Anima M., learned Public Prosecutor. The records have also been perused.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective and recorded a conviction without proper evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, both the said courts had placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 without taking note of the fact that they are interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated by other independent evidence.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Pros