The Appellate Court correctly assessed the evidence, leading to appropriate sentencing given the familial context and circumstances of the case.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A No.47/2004, altering the conviction in C.C No.399/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, to one under Section 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, and reducing the punishment to fine Rs.1,000/-, the de facto complainant in the said case has filed this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 23.04.2000 at about 4:30 p.m, the accused/respondents 1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the landed property of the de facto complainant and inflicted voluntary hurt and grievous hurt upon him by beating with sticks and hitting with stones. The respondents 1 and 2 are also alleged to have destroyed the cultivations in that property and committed mischief causing loss to the tune of Rs.500/- to the de facto complainant. The S.I of Police, Perinadu had filed the final report alleging the offences under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 427 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C, in connection with the above incident.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, eight witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8, and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5 from the part of the prosecution. The second accused tendered evidence as DW1 and brought on record three documents as Exts.D1 to D3. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence, that the learned Magistrate found the respondents 1 and 2 guilty of all the offences charged against them. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 447 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 324 and 427 I.P.C, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 I.P.C. A default clause of simple imprisonment for three months was provided for non-payment of fine.

4. Aggrieved by the above verdict of the Trial Court, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the above appeal, found that the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 326 I.P.C are not brought out from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences were set aside by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also limited the sentence for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C found to have been committed by respondents 1 and 2, to fine Rs.1,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one month. It is the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, which is under challenge in this revision, at the instance of the de facto complainant/PW1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Appellate Court, after discussing the evidence pertaining to the civil case between the parties as revealed by Exts.D2 and D3, and also the paucity of evidence pointing to the possession of the property concerned by the de facto complainant, came to the conclusion that the criminal trespass attributed against the respondents 1 and 2 is not brought out in the case. So also, the Appellate Court relied on Ext.P2 scene mahazar and observed that there was no symptom of any cultivation having been destroyed or damaged, and hence the offence of mischief, as envisaged under Section 427 I.P.C, is not brought out. As regards the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, the Appellate Court, upon an evaluation of the evidence on record, held that the mere loosening of tooth of PW1 without any injury to the lips, can only show that there was no grievous hurt suffered by PW1 as a result of the alleged assault of respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, it was concluded by the Appellat