Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40632
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
MADHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1707/2003
Credible eyewitness testimony, substantiated by medical evidence, is pivotal in upholding convictions for violent assaults under IPC.
Headnote:
Criminal - Assault - IPC Section List - The court confirmed the conviction for assault causing grievous hurt and affirmed the relevance of Sections 341, 323, 324, and 326 IPC, interpreting these provisions to ensure justice for the victim while adjusting the sentence for proportionality.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners were accused of attacking a victim with deadly weapons, resulting in grievous injuries. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the victim and medical evidence confirming the nature of injuries sustained.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony credible, rejecting the defense's claim of an accident. The medical and witness evidence supported the injuries inflicted by the revision petitioners, justifying their conviction.
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners were justified based on the evidence presented and whether the sentence for Section 326 IPC was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that credible eyewitness testimony, supported by medical evidence, holds significant weight in criminal proceedings, and the severity of injuries warrants appropriate sentencing under relevant sections of the IPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed in part, reducing the sentence for Section 326 IPC while affirming convictions under other sections.
O R D E R
The Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala in Crime No.161/1992 prosecuted revision petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Varkala accusing offence under Sections 341 , 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 IPC with a plea that at 10 P.M., on 13/5/1992, the revision petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, were armed with deadly weapons, like chopper and sword, and assaulted PW2 and thereby PW2 sustained grievous hurt.
2. The case was registered by PW5, the Head Constable on the basis of Exhibit P2 First Information Statement given by PW2. PW5 completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the trial court.
3. The learned Magistrate issued process, responding to which the revision petitioners entered appearance. Thereupon the revision petitioners were heard and a charge for the above said offences was framed. When read over and explained, the revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P8 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 and advanced a plea of total innocence. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month, three months, six months and two years respectively under the above Sections. A fine of Rs.1,000/- each was also slapped against the revision petitioners under Section 326 IPC . The fine amount was ordered to be paid to PW2 as compensation.
4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, they preferred Crl. Appeal No.59/1994 before the Sessions Judge Thiruvananthapuram. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 2/7/2003, 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.
5. I have heard Adv. Smt. Mini Gopinath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri. Noushad Thottathil, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners took me through the relevant portions of the evidence.
6. PW2, the victim, of course, had given evidence supporting the prosecution. PWs 6 and 7 were cited as occurrence witnesses. But the court below disbelieved PWs 6 and 7 as their evidence is contradictory. Whereas PW2 was believed and arrived a finding of guilty. Since the occurrence witnesses were not relied upon by the court below, I had a critical scrutiny of the evidence of PW2 through which the learned counsel took me. Going by the evidence of PW2, though he was subjected to searching cross-examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve him.
7. The evidence of PW2 would show that he was first taken to the Health Centre at Varkkala. From there he was referred to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chirayinkizh. PW1 was the Medical Officer attached to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chirayinkizh. The evidence of PW1 supported by Exhibit P1 wound certificate would show that PW2 had (1) a lacerated wound 3 cm x .75 cm cutting through the bone on the back of right forearm about 5 cm above the wrist, (2) a lacerated wound 1.5cm x .5 cem on the back of left forearm about 5 cm below the elbow, (3) a lacerated wound 4 cm x .75 cm on the lateral aspect of left leg about 3 cm below the knee, (4) a lacerated wound 3 cm x .25 cm on the mid part of the left thigh at about the middle, (5) a lacerated wound 3 cm long bone deep on the right upper parietal region of scalp and (6) a lacerated wound 4 cm long bone deep on the right side of forehead. According to PW3, the Lecturer in Medical College hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, wh
