2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4956
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
JAGATHI – Appellant
Versus
S H O – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 2059/2006
Credibility and corroboration of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence are crucial in affirming criminal convictions.
Headnote:
Criminal - Assault - IPC 341, 324 - Court affirmed conviction under IPC, reduced sentence to align with justice.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with wrongful restraint and assault. They allegedly restrained the complainant and inflicted stab wounds. The trial court found them guilty, a decision upheld by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The evidence from the complainant and his daughter was credible and corroborated by medical findings. The courts' conclusions on guilt were supported by the evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the evidence substantiated the charges of wrongful restraint and assault against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, affirming that the conviction was justified based on the established facts.
Final Decision: Conviction upheld; sentence for the stabbing offense reduced to three months' imprisonment and a fine.
O R D E R
The Sub Inspector of Police, Bedakam Police Station, in Crime No.183/2001 filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioners (accused 1 and 3) and another (2nd accused) before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod, accusing offences under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC , with an allegation that at 5.P.M., on 23/9/2001, the revision petitioners along with the 2nd accused, in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1, on a culvert near his house at Parathodu and the first revision petitioner along with the 2nd accused pushed him down over the culvert and then the 1st revision petitioner stabbed PW1 with a knife which was marked as MO1 at the forehead. While attempting to ward off the stab, PW1 sustained injury at his head and hand. PW2, the daughter of PW1, and others gathered. PW1 was taken to the Primary Centre, Bedakam wherein PW3 was the Medical Officer. After taking treatment, he went to Bedakam Police Station and gave Exhibit P1 First Information Statement. It was recorded by a Head Constable who was in charge of the Station and registered a case. PW7, another Head Constable took over the investigation. PW7, after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
2. Responding to the process issued, the revision petitioners along with the 2nd accused entered appearance and pleaded not guilty to the charge when the charge was framed, read over and explained. Therefore, they were sent for trial. Pending trial, the 2nd accused died. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioners were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating evidence. Though they were call upon to enter their defence, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively under Sections 341 and 324 read with
34 IPC .
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, they preferred Crl. Appeal No.141/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -III), Kasaragod to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 31/3/2006, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.
4. I have heard Adv. Sri. C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Lisha, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the material evidence and the judgment impugned.
5. PW2 is the daughter of PW1. PW3 is the Medical Officer who treated PW1. PWs 4 and 5 are two other occurrence witnesses. PWs 4 and 5 turned hostile. Therefore, the only evidence available on record is that of PWs1 and 2. The question is whether the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is believable or not.
6. According to PW3, he examined PW1 at 5.30.
P.M. on 23/9/2001 and issued Exhibit P2 wound certificate. PW3 had noted a lacerated wound 2cm on the tip of the right middle finger and incised wound on the middle of the forehead 2cm length with bleeding. The suggestions made to PW3 is that the injury might be caused by a fall. But in re-
examination, PW3 would depose that if PW1 falls down and sustains injury, there is likelihood of causing injury over the nose. Since there was no injury on nose, the story of fall and sustaining injury is not believable.
7. PW1 would depose that while he was going to see a volley ball match, the revision petitioners along with the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained him and pushed him down to a culvert. While PW1 attempting to stand up, he was stabbed