Minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate a conviction under Section 324 IPC when the evidence is otherwise consistent.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta and the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, in C.C.No.210/2003 and in Crl.Appeal No.399/2005 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.07.2003 at about 8.00 pm, the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt and grievous hurt upon PW1, his wife, by stabbing injury with a knife upon the palmar aspects of her right and left hands. It is stated that the relationship between the petitioner and PW1 got estranged, and that he was nurturing enmity with PW1. Thus, the Sub Inspector of Police, Koipuram Police Station had filed the Final Report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC .

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW1 to PW9, and brought on record 5 documents as Exts.P1 to P5. On the part of the petitioner, four contradictions in the prior statements of the witnesses, were marked as Exts.D1 to D4.

4. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not brought out, and accordingly acquitted the petitioner, in connection with the aforesaid offence. However, he was found guilty of 324 and convicted thereunder. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 324 .

5. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the above appeal, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.

6. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

8. Before the Trial Court, PW1 to PW3 were the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence of the crime. Among the above witnesses, PW1 is the injured, and PW2 and PW3 are her parents. PW1 had tendered evidence in clear and consistent terms about the criminal acts attributed to the petitioner herein. PW2 and PW3, who were present at the house where the incident took place, testified before the court in corroboration of the evidence adduced by PW1. It is true that some contradictions were brought out from the prior statements of the aforesaid witnesses. But, it could be seen that the aforesaid contradictions could only be termed as minor discrepancies, which would not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. It is well settled that such discrepancies are quite usual, and that the entire prosecution case cannot be eschewed for such minor discrepancies in the evidence adduced.

9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, after evaluation of the evidence on record, found that the testimonies of PW1 to PW3, are trustworthy and reliable. It is not possible for this Court to dislodge the above concurrent findings of the courts below in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

10. Having regard to the facts revealed from the case records as well as the reasonings of the courts below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that the findings of the courts below that the prosecution has successfully established the commission of offence under Section 324 IPC , can only be upheld.

11. As already stated above, the punishment awarded for the offence found to have be