Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40139
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
GEORGE KUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 794/2003
A conviction for grievous hurt under IPC can stand despite minor discrepancies in witness testimony, provided the core elements of the offence are established.
Headnote:
Injury - Criminal Offences - IPC Sections 324, 326 - The court affirmed conviction under both sections for violent assault, modifying sentences and imposing compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, along with another accused, was convicted of causing hurt to the victim using a wooden plank and firewood. Witness testimonies supported the prosecution's claims, with medical evidence corroborating the injuries sustained.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the convictions, finding no error in the lower courts' assessments and evidentiary conclusions while addressing minor inconsistencies in witness accounts.
Issues: The primary issues involved the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the nature of injuries sustained, and the appropriateness of the imposed sentences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that despite some inconsistencies, the evidence sufficiently supported the findings of grievous hurt as defined under IPC Sections 324 and 326.
Final Decision: Conviction upheld, sentences modified; fines and compensation ordered.
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.468/1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ranny. He along with the 2nd accused was prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar Police Station, in Crime No.57/1993 accusing offences under Sections 324 and 326 read with 34 IPC . The allegations are that, at 8.p.m., on 26.6.1993, the revision petitioner along with the 2nd accused, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted simple hurt and grievous hurt to PW1 by the revision petitioner beating him with an wooden plank at left wrist, left leg and other parts of the body. The 2nd accused was alleged to have beaten PW1 with a firewood.
2. PW1 was lifted to the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta. From there, intimation was conveyed to the Station House Officer, Chittar Police Station. A Head Constable, who was examined as PW8, went to the hospital and recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1. On the basis of that statement, a case was registered. The investigation was taken over by PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police. It was completed by another officer and charge sheet was submitted before the trial court.
3. When charge was framed, read over and explained, both the accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked. During cross examination of PW1, certain portions of the First Information Statement were marked as Exts.D1 and D2. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, both the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of them denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a plea of total denial. Though they were called 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, both the accused were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year for offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively.
4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.64/96. In the meanwhile, the 2nd accused expired. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, by the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence impugned, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred.
5. I have heard Adv.Sri.V.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel took me through the impugned judgment and the material evidence. 6. As mentioned earlier, PW1 is the injured. He had given evidence supporting prosecution. PW2 is a neighbour of PW1. PW2 also supported the prosecution. PWs 5, 6 and 7 were also cited by the prosecution as occurrence witnesses but they didn't support. So, in support of the prosecution allegations, the available evidence is that of PWs 1 and 2. PW3 is a doctor, who examined PW1 and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. PW4 is the Orthopedic Surgeon who treated PW1. Ext.P3 is the discharge certificate.
7. The evidence of PW3 coupled with Ext.P2 would show that PW1 had the following injuries:
“i) contusion 4x3 cm on the left cheek.
ii) contusion with abrasion 4 x 1 cm on the left wrist iii) contusion 10x9 cm on the back of chest on left side of scapula iv) contusion with abrasion 10x4 cm, 10 cm below injury no.3 on back of chest on left side.
v) contusion with abrasion 4x2 cm over left shin.
vi) contusion with abrasion 2x1 cm on the right index finger.
Vii) pain and difficulty to move right finger viii) contusion 4x4 cm over right leg near upper part.”
8. The evidence of PW4 supported by Ext.P3 would show that X-ray examination revealed comminuted fracture of the right tibia. PW1 was treated as an inpatient at the h
