The court reaffirmed the application of Section 324 IPC in cases involving assault with a deadly weapon and affirmed the necessity of compensating the victims.

O R D E R

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C.C.No.364/1995 and the Additional Session Judge (Adhoc-I) in Crl. A. No.317/1998 concurrently found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC . The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the trial court. It was confirmed in appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred. 2. The revision petitioner is the first accused.

He along with two others (accused 2 and 3) were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Edakkad Police Station, who was examined as PW7, in Crime No.11/1995 accusing offence under Section 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC , with an allegation that at 9 P.M. on 26/1/1995, the revision petitioner assaulted Faisel, who is the son of PW1 alleging that he had been stealing coconuts from the property belonging to the revision petitioner. Hearing the cry of Faisel, who was examined as PW4, PW1 went in rescue. Thereupon she was beaten by the revision petitioner with an iron rod. The other accused beat PW1 with hands. Seeing PW1 being assaulted, PWs 2 and 8 who are two neighbours, went in rescue. PWs 2 and 8 were also beaten by the revision petitioner with iron rod and they sustained injuries. Accused 2 and 3 were also alleged to have beaten PWs 2 and 8 with hands.

3. PWs 1, 2 and 8 were admitted in the Government Hospital, Thalassery. On getting intimation, PW6, the Head Constable attached to the Police Station proceeded to the hospital and recorded Exhibit P1 First Information Statement given by PW1. On the basis of Exhibit P1, a case was registered by PW6. PW7 took over the investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

4. The revision petitioner and other accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exhibit P1 to P6 were examined. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the prosecution had not succeeded to establish the offence under Section 323 IPC against any of the accused, whereas offence under Section 324 was established against the revision petitioner for having caused simple hurt to PWs 1, 2 and 8 with an iron rod which is a deadly weapon. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced as above. The revision petitioner could not succeed in his appeal.

5. I have heard Adv. Sri. A.C. Venugopal, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Sareena George, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me though the judgment impugned and evidence of the occurrence witnesses.

6. Going by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 8, I find that they had given evidence in support of the prosecution case regarding the hurt caused to PWs 1, 2 and 8. The evidence of PW5, the then Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Thalassery supported by Exhibit P2 to P4 would show that PW1 had sustained a lacerated injury on left eyebrow 3x1 c.m. bone deep. PW2 had sustained severely crushed lacerated wound frontal area of scalp left side 6 x 2 c.m. bone deep and multiple aberration with contusion back of chest about 3 x 1 c.m. PW8 had sustained a lacerated wound frontal area of scalp 5 x 1 c.m. bone deep and small aberration right shoulder. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 8 is thus corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 8 regarding hurt caused by beating with iron rod, supported by the evidence of PW5 and Exhibits P2 to P4, could not be impeached in cross-examination. There is nothing to conclude that PWs 1, 2 and 8 sustained the above injuries by any other means or that they are falsely implicating the petitioner with any