The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court while ordering compensation to the victim.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. …...................................

Crl.R.P.No.537 of 2016 ….................................................................. Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2025 ORDER Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.730 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He stood trial before that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(i) of IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that on 02.07.2011 at about

12:30 p.m., the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 and hit him on his left eye using a nail cutter, causing injuries.

4. The trial court, after appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC and acquitted him thereof. But it found the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 324 convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under with a default clause. The fine amount was also ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appl.No.508 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode. The said court, by judgment dated 27.01.2016 dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard, Sri. P.R. Sreejith, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. An appraisal of the materials on record would go to show that PW1, the injured, has given evidence in tune with the prosecution case. His evidence shows that on 02.07.2011 at about 12:30 p.m., the accused attacked him with a nail cutter, on his left eye, which he identified as MO1. It is to be seen that the evidence of PW3, who is an eyewitness to the incident, also supports the version of PW1 regarding the incident. Further, the medical evidence adduced by examining PW4 and marking Ext.P3 wound certificate shows that PW1 was emained by PW4 within 5 minutes of the incident and that at that time, PW1 was suffering from ecchymosis in his left eye. This evidence also corroborates with the testimony of PW1 regarding the manner in which the incident has taken place and the injury sustained by him. Thus, I am of the view that both the trial court and the appellate court have considered the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has arrived at a correct conclusion of guilt against the accused.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sentence imposed on the accused may be reduced considering the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2011, the age of the accused, and the chances of his reformation. As stated earlier, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 324 IPC , with a default clause. Considering the nature of offence, the weapon used, the injury sustained by the victim, and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner/accused by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court is on a higher side, and the same can be modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under . But I am also of the view that the revision petitioner/accused can be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to