The court upheld the conviction for criminal trespass and causing hurt, confirming the credibility of witness testimonies while modifying the sentence due to excessive fines imposed.

O R D E R

The revision petitioners/accused call in question the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.No.172/2014 of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram whereby they were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 IPC .

2. Prosecution case is that on 29.4.2009 at around 8.30 pm accused 1 to 4 who are the siblings of the defacto complainant criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant, manhandled her and A1 stabbed her with a knife and caused injuries on her hand. They also committed mischief by destroying the household appliances and caused loss of ₹3,000/- to PW1. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC .

3. In this judgment their rank is mentioned as shown in the final report filed by the investigating officer. A2 to A4 in the charge sheet/revision petitioners abjured the guilt and faced trial.

4. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P8. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found A2 to 4 in the final report/revision petitioners herein guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 448 and 506(1) of IPC and each accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the said offences.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A2 to A4/revision petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.172/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In appeal, their conviction under Section 506 (i) IPC was set aside. The conviction for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 was confirmed and the sentence was modified and A2 to A4/revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- each for the offences under and 323 .

6. A2 to A4/revision petitioners assail the judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to show that they caused any hurt to PW1; that the trial court and the Sessions Court have not properly analysed the evidence; that there are material contradictions in the versions of defacto complainant; that her oral interested testimony do not receive any corroboration from Ext.P5 wound certificate. Thus the accused 2 to 4/revision petitioners seek to set aside the conviction and sentence against them for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC .

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly analysed the evidence and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

8. It has come out in evidence that A2 to A4 are siblings of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant who was examined as PW1 has categorically testified that on 29.4.2009 at around 8.30 pm, accused 1 to 4 criminally trespassed into her house; that A2 poured chilli powder on her face; that A1 inflicted injury on her hand with a knife.

9. PW7 who is an eyewitness to the incident has also supported her version. There are no reasons to disbelieve the versions of PW1 and PW7 regarding the incident. Their versions are credible and trustworthy. Ext.P6 scene mahazar would reveal that the scene of occurrence is inside the residence of PW1. Exrt.P5 is the wound certificate. It would show that PW1 had undergone treatment at the hospital for the injuries sustained by her. The evidence on record would show that accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 and manhandled PW1 and caused hurt to her.

10. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding that A2 to A4 are guilty of the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC .

11. Now let us see whether the sentence awarded against the accused 2 to 4/revision petitioners needs any interference by this Court.

12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/a