The admission of the right of private defence necessitates careful evaluation of limits before determining appropriate convictions.

O R D E R

The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thodupuzha in Crl.A No.145/2014 confirming the conviction of the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C in S.C No.343/2013 on the files of Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, and modifying the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.5,000/-, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The petitioner faced criminal prosecution before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for the commission of offence under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. The allegation against him was that, on 15.04.2011 at about 5:00 p.m, he stabbed PW1 upon his chest, and PW2 upon his abdomen, with the intention of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. The reason for the commission of the crime was said to be the enmity nurtured by the petitioner for the act of PW1 giving shelter to the petitioner’s wife, who is the sister of PW1.

3. In the trial before the Assistant Sessions Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 11 documents as Exts.P1 to P11. One material object was identified as MO1. From the part of the petitioner, one witness was examined as DW1 and a document marked as Ext.D1. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the offence under Section 308 I.P.C has not been brought out from the evidence. However, the petitioner was found guilty of Section 324 I.P.C and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.5,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has established the commission of offence under I.P.C by the petitioner. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years while retaining the fine as such. It is the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The Trial Court relied on the evidence adduced by PW1 to PW3 to arrive at the finding that the criminal act attributed to the petitioner has been established by the prosecution. The main defence of the petitioner was that it was PW1 along with PW2 and PW3, who mounted physical assault upon him with a knife held by PW1, and that he as well as PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries in the scuffle that followed. Thus, the right of private defence was canvassed by the petitioner for seeking an acquittal. The counter case registered as S.C No.341/2013 before the same Trial Court, in connection with the alleged physical assault mounted by PW1 to PW3 upon the petitioner, was projected as an instance to show that the petitioner was exercising his right of private defence, at the time when the brawl took place with PW1 to PW3. The Trial Court refused to accept the above defence with the observation that the evidence revealed the aggressive act of the petitioner physically assaulting PW1 and PW2 with a knife, and that the evidence in the above regard disproved the plea of private defence canvassed by the petitioner.

6. However, the Appellate Court, in its judgment dated

11.11.2015 in Crl.A No.145/2014, accepted the plea of private defence canvassed by the petitioner, to a great extent. In paragraph No.13 of the appeal judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the presence of PW1 to PW3, who were employees of the KSEB and KSRTC, at 4:50 p.m at the place of occurrence was indicat