Evidence from injured witnesses can carry substantial weight, although the existence of a prior civil dispute necessitates careful evaluation.

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 17.07.2017 in Crl. Appeal No.283/2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda, which arose from the judgment dated 27.01.2011 in S.C.No.488/2008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda. The revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 09.02.2007 at 7.00 p.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the rubber plantation of PW1 and assaulted him as well as his son (PW2), and the 1st accused struck PW1 on the head with an iron rod and caused a fracture on his head. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 447 , 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. After trial, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 325 of the IPC and imposed separate sentences for both the offences. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, acquitted the 2nd accused of the charges levelled against him. However, the finding entered by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge against the 1st accused was confirmed by modifying the sentence. Without altering the finding against the 1st accused, the sentence was modified, and he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 447 of the . For offence punishable under Section 325 of the , the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/-

with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

4. Heard Sri. Sheejo Chacko, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

5. 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 urged that both the trial court and the appellate court placed undue reliance on the testimony of PW1, the de facto complainant, without taking note of the fact that there existed a civil dispute between the accused and PW1 with respect to an agreement of sale, whereby the 1st accused agreed to sell his property to PW1. According to the learned revision petitioner, due to some reasons beyond the control of the accused, the accused failed to execute a sale deed as agreed, and in order to pressurize the accused to arrive at a settlement in the said civil dispute, the present criminal case has been foisted by PW1 with the help of police authorities. According to the learned revision petitioner, when the existence of a civil dispute is established, both the trial court as well as the appellate court ought to have acted with much care and circumspection, as there was every possibility of chance of false implication. The learned counsel further urged that in the absence of independent corroboration, the evidence of PW1 and