The court emphasized the special status of injured witnesses and affirmed the need for corroboration in cases involving motive from disputes.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment dated 26.10.2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 335/2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court–I, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose from the judgment dated 23.06.2012 in C.C. No. 653/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2007 at about 3:30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the property of PW2, used abusive language against him, and inflicted injuries, including fracture on various parts of his body, using the blunt portion of a chopper. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447 , 294(b), 324, and

326 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 294(b), 324, and 326 of the IPC and imposed separate sentences for each of the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, altered the finding as well as the nature and the extent of the sentence. The Appellate Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under , 323, and 325 of the and convicted. However, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 326 of the .

4. By the said appellate judgment, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC . For the offence under Section 447 of , the accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two days. For the offence under Section 325 of , the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.

5. Heard Sri. Dinesh M., the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sanal P., the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the accused are illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was argued that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court placed undue reliance on the testimony of PW2, the de facto complainant, without properly considering the contradictions and improvements in his evidence. It was further contended that the courts below failed to appreciate that there existed a bona fide dispute between the parties concerning a pathway, thereby giving rise to a possibility of false implication. The learned counsel also submitted that, in the absence of independent corroboration, it was unsafe to base a conviction solely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW2.

7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment to invoke the revisional power of this Court. According to the Public Prosecutor, it was mainly based on the evidence of PW2, who is the injured in this case, that the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, entered into a finding of guilt of the accused. It was further submitted that the evidence of PW2 is well corroborated by the evidence of PW3, his wife, and the medical evidence adduced in this case; therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the judgment which is under challenge in t