The case highlights the principle of confirming convictions based on consistent factual findings, with judicial discretion to modify sentences in cases of prolonged legal proceedings.

ORDER

2. By judgment dated 30.04.2004, the learned magistrate convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the , to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months more each. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the 1 st accused preferred an appeal before the appellate court. By judgment dated 11.03.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner/1 st accused is before this Court.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.12.1997 at about 7.30 pm, at the road in front of the shop of PW5, accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PWs 1 to 3 and grievous hurt to PW4 by beating with MO1 series firewood and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC .

4. During the trial of the case, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P9 on prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

5. Heard Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner; and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

6. When this revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 187 of 2004, the revision petitioner/1 st accused was arrested by the police and he had undergone sentence for a considerable long period. Hence, this Court directed the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram to furnish the details of the sentence undergone by the revision petitioner/1 st accused in this case. The Superintendent, Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram filed a report stating that the accused had undergone sentence in connection with this case from 06.12.2011 to 13.06.2012, i.e., for a total period of six months and 7 days. On 13.06.2012, he was released on bail as per the order the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, South Paravur pursuant to an order dated 08.06.2012 suspending the sentence in the revision.

7. PWs 1 to 4 are the injured and PW5 is the owner of the tea shop, in front of which the incident took place. PW6, another shop owner, stated about the incident took place on the date of occurrence involving the accused and the injured, though he did not state a case in tune with the prosecution case. Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement given by PW1. Ext.P1 was recorded by PW7, the then Head Constable attached to Parippally Police Station, on 14.12.1997 at 3.45 pm from the District Hospital, wherein the injured were admitted for treatment. Ext.P2 is the First Information Report registered by PW7 consequent to Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1.

8. Exts.P3 to P6 are the wound certificates drawn up by PW9, the Assistant Surgeon attached to the District Hospital, Kollam. Ext.P3 wound certificate pertaining to PW1 was issued noting down the following injuries; i)Two contused abrasion parallel to each other 6 cms in length 4 cms below the left clavicle, ii)Contusion around left eye, iii)Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cms inner aspect of left thumb, iv)Contused abrasion 0.5 x 1 cm on the left forearm.

Ext.P4 is the wound