Concurrent convictions for criminal trespass and grievous hurt under IPC confirmed; sentence reduced based on circumstances.

O R D E R

The concurrent conviction and sentence in C.C No.636/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and Crl.A No.54/2006 of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused in the aforesaid case. The offence proved against the petitioner are under Sections 452 and 326 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that on 21.05.2001 at about 2:15 p.m, the petitioner criminally trespassed into the dwelling house of PW1 and PW2, and inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon PW2 by hacking with a chopper upon his right leg and left arm. The proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in the final report filed by the S.I of Police, Mangalam Dam.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and brought on record four documents as Exts.P1 to P4. The weapon of offence used for the commission of the crime was identified and marked as MO1. Three documents were marked from the part of the accused as Exts.D1 to D3. After analysing the above evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the offence under SectionS 452 and 326 I.P.C, and accordingly, convicted the petitioner. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years each was imposed for the commission of the aforesaid offences. In addition to that, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation Rs.20,000/- to PW2. A default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six months was provided for non payment of compensation. The substantive sentence of imprisonment under Sections 452 and 326 I.P.C was ordered to run concurrently. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with 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 as well as the Appellate Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2, to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the accusation that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the dwelling house of PW1 and PW2, and mounted physical assault upon PW2 by hacking with a chopper. PW1, who is the wife of PW2, tendered evidence in clear and consistent terms as that of the evidence tendered by PW1, who suffered grievous hurt as a result of the crime. In addition to the above evidence, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found the evidence of PW3, the landlord of PW1 and PW2, as convincing and corroborating the evidence of PW1 and PW2, to a certain extent. 6. One of the main challenges raised by the petitioner was the delay of two days in lodging the first information statement. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found the reason stated by PW2 for the above delay as convincing and satisfactory. The medical emergency which compelled PW1 to take PW2 to the Medical College Hospital at Thrissur, and from there to a private hospital, and the admission of PW2 at the ICU of the private hospital, was stated as the reason why PW1 was not able to immediately report the crime to the police. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court erroneously accepted the above reason for the dela