The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC and the order releasing them on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, while also directing the accused to pay compensation to the victim under Section 5 of the Act.

The above appeal is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 439 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam challenging their conviction under Section 324 IPC and releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Act’ for short). The Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the de facto complainant against the order releasing the accused on probation of good conduct, instead of awarding appropriate sentence for the offence committed.

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.02.2006, at about 9 a.m., while the de facto complainant and his workers were making preparations in connection with the construction of the first floor of the building owned by the brother of the de facto complainant near Pattimattom junction, the accused, who are residing adjacent to that property, raised objection against the construction of the first floor and thereafter, they attacked the de facto complainant with a sickle tied at the top of a bamboo stick. It is alleged that the accused persons extended the sickle tied on a bamboo stick towards the neck of the de facto complainant and thereafter, pulled the same and when the de facto complainant prevented the attack with his hand, the sickle fell on his flank and he sustained injuries on his flank and in between the fingers and the accused are thereby, alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 308 and 427 r/w 34 IPC .

3. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court and when the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution. From the side of the defence Exhibits D1 and D1(a) were marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2007, convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 324 IPC and after hearing the accused persons and considering the facts and circumstance of the case, invoked Section 4 of the Act and the appellants are challenging their conviction under and the revision petitioner is challenging the release of the accused persons under of the Act, instead of imposing appropriate sentence under .

5. Heard Sri. N. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Sruthy N. Bhat, the learend counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. The points that arise for consideration are the following:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 324 IPC is legally sustainable.

2.Whether the order releasing the accused on probaton of good condcut under Section 4 of the Act is legally sustainable?

Point No.1:

7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has not examined any of the persons residing in the neighbourhood and the dress alleged to be worn by the de facto complainant at the time of occurrence was not seized and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence is not at all reliable.

8. But, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the revision petitioner argued that PW1 is the injured victim and his evidence regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PW2, the worker engaged for the construction of the building and there is also clear medical evidence and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused persons for the offence under Section 324 IPC .

9. The evidence of PW1 shows that he is a building contractor and that on 24.02.2006, he was engaged in the construction of the house of his brother near Pattimattom junction. According to PW1, while he was standing on the sunshade and setting the alignment for the construction of the first floor, the accused persons raised objection by saying that they will not permit the