Conviction under Section 326 IPC affirmed where evidence substantiates grievous injury caused by accused's actions despite inconsistencies in testimonies.

O R D E R

In this revision petition, accused assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him in Crl.A No.724/2011 of Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ).

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16.6.2003 at around

8.15 pm, at Moonupedika, in front of the house of PW4 Beeran, accused manhandled his wife, father-in-law Beeran and brother-in-law. On seeing the attack against them, PW5 Saleem who is a relative and neighbour of them, rushed to there and intervened. While so, accused beat PW5 with an iron rod and caused grievous injuries to his ribs and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 IPC .

3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement given by PW5 Saleem, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mathilakam Police Station. After completing the investigation, PW15 laid final report against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and

326 IPC .

4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW15 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and MO1.

6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC . Accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 . He was convicted for the offence under and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ₹2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

7. In appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A No.724/2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, confirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC . The sentence against the accused was modified in appeal and the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year was reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the accused was directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The compensation was ordered to be paid to PW5.

8. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused has preferred this revision, contending that the trial court and appellate court went wrong in convicting and sentencing the accused; that the trial court and the appellate courts have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of PW5 and PW2 and therefore their testimonies are not reliable. It was further contended that if at all the prosecution case is believed, there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause any hurt to PW5 and therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC will not be attracted.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the prosecution case; that the trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and therefore there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of conviction and order of sentence and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Before adverting to the question whether the finding of conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate court needs any interference by this Court, we have to bear in mind the well settled principle that the revisional power of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal and unl