Reduced sentence in revisional jurisdiction when lower court awards excessive and disproportionate punishment in IPC 323 and 326 cases.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Thrissur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 323 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC') are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.04.2000, at about 05:00 p.m, the petitioner wrongfully restrained PW4 and punched him upon the face and other parts of the body, and thereafter, when PW6 tried to prevent the above assault, the petitioner hacked him with a knife, causing fracture of right middle finger and cut injury on the left index finger. In connection with the above incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungalur, laid the final report alleging the commission of offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and brought on record six documents as Exts P1 to P6. The weapon of offence was identified and marked as MO1. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC. The substantial sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. A default clause of simple imprisonment for six months was provided for non-payment of the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Out of the fine amount, if realised, an amount of Rs.4,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to PW6. Aggrieved by the above verdict of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed appeal, in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 341 IPC were unsustainable. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the aforesaid offence. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 323 & 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the revision petitioner on repeated posting dates, notice was issued to him intimating the adjourned hearing date, and informing him that the case would be decided in his absence, if there is no representation on the adjourned posting date. The above notice was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’. In the above circumstances, Adv. Mr Gopi Krishna. R was appointed as Amicus curiae to represent the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus curiae representing the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW6 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner wrongfully restrained PW4 and inflicted voluntary hurt upon him, and thereafter inflicted voluntary grievous hurt with a knife upon PW6, when he tried to prevent the physical assault of the petitioner upon PW4. The Appellate Court also relied on the aforesaid evidence, but found that the offence of wrongful restraint is not brought out from the said evidence. However, the Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW6 could be relied on to find that the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW4 by punching upon his face and the other parts of the body, and that when PW6 t