The Court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 323 and 341, modifying the sentence to include fines and compensation.

J U D G M E N T

The sole accused in S.C.No.94 of 2011 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging conviction and sentence imposed in the above case dated 11.07.2014. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent.

2. Parties in this appeal will be referred to as `prosecution’

and `accused’ hereafter.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.

4. In this matter, police investigated Crime No.179/2010 of Melattur Police Station and filed final report before the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 341, 308 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ’ for short). When the case was made out to the Additional Sessions Court- II, Manjeri, the Additional Sessions Court framed charge for the said offences and tried the case. During trial, PW1 to PW12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 and M.O1 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

5. Even though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defense evidence, after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, no defense evidence adduced.

6. On evaluation of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 while acquitting him for the offences punishable under Sections 308 and 506(ii) of IPC . Accordingly the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month also was imposed. Similarly, for the offence under Section 341 of , the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and it was ordered that substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

7. While challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that the trial court went wrong in finding the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC without support of convincing evidence and hence the conviction and sentence are unsustainable. Therefore, conviction and sentence would require interference. The learned counsel also argued that if the conviction is found sustainable, then sentence may be modified to avoid jail sentence by imposing fine and compensation.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention raised by the accused and argued that the evidence of PW4, PW6 and PW7 satisfactorily proved the prosecution allegation which would justify the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC . But the learned Public Prosecutor not seriously opposed interference in sentence.

9. In view of the rival submissions, the points to be decided are as follows:

(i) Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC ? (ii) Whether the finding of the trial court that the accused committed offence under Section 341 of is erroneous?

(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?

(iv) The order to be passed?

10. Here, PW4, the defacto complainant, deposed that at about 9 a.m on 03.06.2010 when he was going to MEA Engineering College to drop his daughter (who was examined as PW5) at the college and when he reached near the Village Office, Kariavattam, the accused overtook his car and blocked him. Then the accused pulled out PW4 and shouted on PW4 that the accused would kill him. Then he caught hold of him by his chest and fisted him on his face. Thereafter the accused took a chopper from his car and attempted to chop PW4