The necessity of corroborative evidence in establishing offenses of house trespass and causing injury, with appropriate sentencing under IPC provisions.

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. for convenience), challenging judgment dated 07.01.2013 in C.C. No. 437 of 2003 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and also judgment dated 08.06.2016 in Crl. Appeal No 18 of 2013 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.

3. The parties in the revision petition shall be referred to as ‘prosecution’ and ‘accused’ hereinafter for convenience.

4. The case of the prosecution is that at about 7.15 p.m., on

01.06.2003, the revision petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 114 of 2003, criminally trespassed upon the varantha of house No. T.C.8/1130(1) of Thirumala Ward, belonged to the de facto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him by using a granite piece. The specific allegation is that the accused hit on the forehead of the de facto complainant and thereby caused injuries. On the above facts, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC .

5. The trial court secured the presence of the accused for trial and recorded evidence. PWs 1 to 3 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C and recorded his explanation. Then he was provided with opportunity to adduce defence evidence. But, no defence was adduced on his side.

7. The learned Magistrate, appraised the evidence and finally found that the revision petitioner/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC . Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the said offences and the sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

8. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has concurred with the said finding and dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused.

9. While impeaching the concurrent verdicts of conviction as well as sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that two eye witnesses, cited by the prosecution as CWs 2 and 3, were no more at the time of examination and therefore, the court below has given emphasis to the solitary deposition of PW1 to enter upon conviction.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused argued that overall evaluation of the evidence would give reasonable doubts in the prosecution allegations and therefore, the accused deserves acquittal after setting aside the concurrent findings.

11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentence, relying on the evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of PW2 to sustain the concurrent verdicts. It is submitted that the evidence of PW1 as to the occurrence is not shaken during cross examination. PW2, the Doctor, who issued Exhibit P2 wound certificate, supported the case of prosecution stating that in the occurrence, PW1 sustained lacerated wound on the right side of forehead 1x1x1/2 cms. Further, it is submitted that there is nothing in the evidence available to see any sort of doubts in the prosecution case and therefore, the concurrent verdicts do not require any interference.

12. Even though the power of this Court, while considering a revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is not as that of an appellate court, this Court has power to look into absolute illegality and perversity to see the veracity of the concurrent verdicts. In this matter, the sole occurrence witness is none other than the injured. He deposed before court regarding the occurrence stating that he was