The court modified the sentencing for the accused while affirming the findings of guilt due to the absence of premeditation and the accused's age.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section

397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment dated 17.09.2011 in Crl. Appeal No. 83/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court–II, Kasaragod, arising out of the judgment dated 29.02.2008 in C.C. No. 441/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.04.2007 at 05.30 p.m., while PW1, a Police Constable attached to Kasaragod Police Station, reached in front of Malabar Gold at Kasaragod to enquire about the incident that occurred there, the accused was found carrying a stone in his hand. When PW1 intervened, the accused caught hold of and tore the uniform shirt of PW1 and hit him below the left eye with the stone. The accused also abused PW1 in filthy language and obstructed him from performing his official duty. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 332 of the IPC .

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts. P1 to P8. MO1 was exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. From the side of the accused, no evidence whatsoever was adduced.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 332 of the IPC and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of the , with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for fifteen days. For the offence punishable under Section 332 of the , the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine amount, if paid or realised, Rs. 5,000/-, was ordered to be given to PW1 as compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the finding as well as the sentence imposed.

5. Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

6. This is a case in which a police constable was allegedly abused and assaulted so as to obstruct him from discharging his official duty. When the de facto complainant, who allegedly sustained injury, was examined as PW1, he portrayed the entire matter that transpired in this case vividly before the court. According to him, it was as directed by the Head Constable of Police, Kasaragod Police Station, who was on GD charge duty, that he reached the place of occurrence. When he reached there, he saw the accused uttering obscene words, holding a stone in his hand, and threatening PW2 under the influence of alcohol. Seeing the same, when he approached the accused, the accused turned towards him, caught hold of his uniform, and struck him below his left ear and left eye with a stone.

7. From the records, it is evident that the evidence of PW1 is well corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in this case. The doctor who examined PW1 immediately after the incident and issued Ext. P2 wound certificate was examined as PW3. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW3 and Ext. P2 wound certificate clearly establishes that injuries