IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 3282 OF 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 38/1996 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRIVANDRUM AND THE JUDGMENT IN CRA

219/2001 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED :

1 ANIL KUMAR @ KUNJUMON, S/O.STEPHEN, K.P.7/283, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHAYILA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE.

2 STEPHEN, S/O.KALAPPU, K.P.7/283, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHAYILA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE.

BY ADV SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS:

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PEROORKADA

2 STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

3 ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED.

SUSANNA SUDHA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHAYILA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT K.K.V NAGAR, PANDARAVILA, AARAMKALLU, KARAKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.2017 IN CRL.M.A.NO.6634/2017 IN CRL.R.P.3282/2003 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......…..................................

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3282 of 2003 …..................................

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2023 ORDER Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.38/1996 on the files of the Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. During the pendency of this revision petition, the 2^nd petitioner expired. Since a sentence of fine is imposed, the revision against the second revision petitioner has not abated under Section 394 Cr.P.C and the first petitioner being the son of the second petitioner, is already on the party array and can continue the proceedings.

2. According to the prosecution, on 08.10.1995 at about

5.30 a.m., the first accused assaulted PW1 due to a previous animosity and in furtherance of the common intention the accused caused grievous hurt to PW1 and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 apart from marking material objects Nos.1 and 2. After analyzing the prosecution evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC; apart from simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The 2^nd accused was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Default sentences were also imposed upon them. Rs.2,500/- out of the fine amount realized from the first accused, and Rs.1,500/- realized from second accused was directed to be paid to PW1. Further, Rs.500/- realized from the fine amount imposed on the second accused, was directed to be paid to PW2.

4. In the appeal, preferred as Crl.A.No.219/2001 the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused and dismissed the appeal. It is thus, this revision petition was preferred, challenging the conviction and sentence.

5. Sri.T.M.Abdul Latheef, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, vehemently contended that the prosecution case itself is false and that the evidence adduced, did not support the prosecution version. It was also submitted that the benefit of doubt ought to have been accorded to the petitioner. Referring to the wound certificate and the deposition of PW6-the doctor, it was submitted that, no injury as contemplated under Section 320 of IPC was proved in evidence to have been inflicted so as to arrive at a finding of guilt of the accused under Section 326 of IPC.

6. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court oug