A conviction requires robust evidence; flaws in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence lead to benefit of doubt.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 2^nd accused in C.C.No.343/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam. He stands convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal to the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.A.No.92/2000, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt and the sentence of fine imposed upon him, this revision petition has been preferred.

2. According to the prosecution, on 18.05.1997, the revision petitioner along with the first accused entered into the property where PW1 was residing and after wrongfully restraining the defacto complainant assaulted him and inflicted an injury on his left eye brow and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 were marked while the defence marked contradictions in the evidence of PW2 as D1 and D2.

4. After analysing the evidence adduced, the learned Magistrate acquitted the first accused for all the offences alleged. However, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner being the 2^nd accused, guilty of the offences under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The first accused was acquitted for the offence under of while both accused were acquitted for the offences under Sections 447, 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 of . In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, Kollam, by judgment dated

09.04.2023, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal.

5. Adv.S.Soorya Gayathry, in her persuasive arguments, submitted that the conviction of the revision petitioner is per se erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. In support of her contentions, it was submitted that the trial court as well as the Sessions Court had failed to take into reckoning the flaws in the prosecution evidence like the absence of recovery of the weapon of offence, absence of any eyewitnesses to the incident except the unreliable testimony of PW4. The contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the improvisation of the prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of assault are significant according to the learned counsel. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution evidence should have led the court to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused. Considering the surrounding circumstances including the order of eviction that was already issued against the defacto complainant, the learned counsel asserted that the nature of injury on the eye brow of the defacto complainant indicated a self inflicted injury and both the courts in the impugned judgment failed to appreciate the said contentions and therefore the revision petitioner is entitled for a total acquittal.

6. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that PW4 being the wife of PW1 and a resident of the house where the incident occurred is the natural witness and that her evidence cannot be shrugged aside as interested. Further, it was submitted that there was no question put to the Doctor who was examined as PW5, as to the possibility of the injury being self inflicted. It was submitted that in such circumstances, the said contention does not merit any consideration. It was further submitted that in any event, the sentence imposed on the petitioner being only one of fine, no serious prejudic