Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25200
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
SASEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REP BY – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 2168/2004
The presence of corroborating evidence along with shared intention in causing harm supports the affirmation of conviction under assault and trespass laws.
Headnote:
Assault - IPC - [Sections 324, 448] - The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for criminal trespass and assault, interpreting the severity of injuries and the evidence corroborating the involvement in the attack, while modifying the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, along with another accused, was convicted for assaulting a victim with a sword and a knife during a trespass at a toddy shop, resulting in severe injuries to the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence linking the revision petitioner to the inflicted injuries, affirming the conviction while reducing the sentence imposed under Section 324 IPC.
Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to associate the revision petitioner with the injuries sustained by the victim, and whether the sentence required modification.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence admitted confirmed the involvement of the revision petitioner in stabbing the victim, aligning with the principles of shared criminal intention under applicable statutory provisions.
Final Decision: Conviction confirmed; sentence under Section 324 IPC reduced to one year with a compensation order.
O R D E R
The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra, in C.C.No.78/2000, found the revision petitioner, who was the 2nd accused, guilty along with the first accused for offences under Sections 448 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC . Both of them were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 448 and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 324 .
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the 1st accused filed Crl.A.No.417/2002 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The, revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.391/2002. Crl.A.No.417/2002 was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge. Without noticing the other appeal, Crl.A.No.391/2005 was heard and disposed of by the Sessions Judge on 15.7.2004 whereby the conviction impugned was confirmed. Substantive sentence under Section 324 IPC was : 2:
reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.
3. Crl.A.No.417/2002 was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 10.12.2004. The conviction against the first accused was also confirmed, but the sentence under Section 324 IPC was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, the 1st accused preferred Crl.R.P.No.1808/2005. Crl.R.P.No.1808/2005 was disposed of on 2.8.2012. At the time of argument in that case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was not aware of any appeal or revision preferred by this revision petitioner. That was why Crl.R.P.No.1808/2005 was disposed of independently. In that case, I concurred with the courts below regarding the conviction. But the sentence for offence under was further reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a direction to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the victim. In this case, the learned counsel could give the : 3:
appeal number and tracing with the appeal number, Cr.
R.P.No.1808/2005 was found out.
4. I have heard Sri, T.G. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The order dated 2.8.2012 in Crl.R.P.No.1808/2005 was also perused.
5. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
At 8 p.m on 1.6.1999, while PW1 Babu, who was an employee in a toddy shop, standing at the varanda of the toddy shop bearing door No.1/152 of Nochad Panchayat, the revision petitioner along with the first accused, in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to PW1, committed criminal trespass to the varanda and the 1st accused hacked PW1 with a sword. The second accused stabbed PW1 with a knife. As a result, PW1 sustained severe injuries. He was rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. From there intimation was conveyed to the police, who rushed to the hospital and recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement on the basis of which the case was registered. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted alleging the : 4:
above mentioned offences.
6. Referring to the evidence of PW9, the Medical Officer, and the wound certificate, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though the injury sustained to PW1, was proved by the evidence of PW9 supported by the wound certificate, there is no evidence on record as to which are the injuries inflicted by the revision petitioner and therefore, the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.
Following are the injuries sustained to PW1 as per the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P6 wound certificate.
“(1) incised wound 2 x 1 cms left side of forehead horizontally placed (2) long irregular shaped incised wound 20 cms size extending from left temporal region involving left parietal region upto right parietal region exposing skull (3) incised wound 3 x 10.5 cms left shoulder (4) obliquely placed wound 3x2x9
