Revision petitions confirmed lower court convictions under IPC for voluntary and grievous hurt; reliance on trustworthy witness testimonies established.

O R D E R

The petitioners in Crl.R.P No.3297/2005 are the accused Nos.1 and

2 in C.C No.288/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The petitioners in Crl.R.P No.2372/2007 are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the aforesaid case. All the above four accused were convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C vide the judgment rendered on 09.07.2004. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 324 I.P.C and simple imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.2,000/- under Section 326 I.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as Crl.A No.235/2004. The accused Nos.3 and 4 also preferred appeal before the said Court as Crl.A No.232/2004. Crl.A No.235/2004 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta vide judgment dated 22.09.2005, and Crl.A No.232/2004 was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta vide judgment dated 16.10.2006. By the above judgments, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

2. Since there was no representation from the part of the petitioners, notice was issued to them from the Registry intimating the adjourned date of posting and informing them that the case would be decided in their absence if there is no representation on the adjourned hearing date. The notices issued to the petitioners in Crl.R.P No.3297/2005 were returned with the endorsement “addressee could not be located”. The notice issued to the first petitioner in Crl.R.P No.2372/2007 was returned with the endorsement “addressee refused”. The notice to the second petitioner in Crl.R.P No.2372/2007 was returned with the endorsement “addressee deceased”. In the above circumstances, this Court, by the order dated 12.12.2025, appointed Adv Mr.Maheswar Padickal as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioners in both these cases.

3. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The prosecution case is that on 28.02.2002 at about

7:30 p.m, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted voluntary hurt and grievous hurt upon PW1 by beating him with sticks and caused injuries including fracture of the right leg and left wrist. Before the Trial Court, eight witnesses were examined on the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW8 and five documents were marked as Exts P1 to P5. It is by relying on the aforesaid evidence that the Trial Court convicted the petitioners for the commission of offence under Sections 324 & 326 read with Section 34 IPC . The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.

5. Before the Trial Court, PW1 to PW3 tendered evidence in support of the prosecution case. PW1 is the injured person, who was attacked by the petitioners at about 7.30 p.m., on 28.02.2002, while he was walking to Kulathungal -Athirikkal road, along with PW3, his wife. The criminal acts attributed to the petitioners are clearly deposed by PW1 in his testimony before the Trial Court. PW2 is the person who came to the spot hearing the cries of PW1 at the time when he was assaulted by the petitioners. He also testified before the Trial Court about the criminal act of the petitioners beating PW1 with sticks. It is PW2 who took PW1 to General Hospital, Pathanamthitta, and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. PW3, the wife of PW1, who was by the side of PW1 when the accused physically assaulted him, categorically stated about the specif