The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable and does not require independent corroboration for conviction, and identification of a known assailant in court is sufficient evidence even in the absence of a test identification parade.

ORDER :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 31.05.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.144/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda, which arose out of C.C. No.533/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kodungallur. The revision petitioners herein are the first and second accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 04.05.2005 at about 8:45 p.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, placed a telephone post across the road with the intention of intercepting the motorcycle ridden by CW1 (PW6). On noticing the obstruction, when PW6 stopped the motorcycle, the first accused allegedly assaulted PW6 on his face with an iron stick, causing the loss of three teeth in the upper jaw and injuries to his lips and forehead. In the meantime, the second accused allegedly struck PW6 on his right lower leg with another iron stick, thereby causing fracture injuries. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 and MO2 were identified and exhibited. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, they were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

4. Finally, the learned Magistrate found both the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of the IPC and were convicted. The accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. Further, the accused were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 144/2008 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of the IPC. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The sentence imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 IPC were confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, both the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Smt. Saneeta Elizhabath Shiju, learned amicus curiae, and Sri G. Sudheer, learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioners are illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. It was contended that the trial court placed undue reliance on the testimony of PW6 while ignoring the fact that the independent witnesses cited by the prosecution to prove the occurrence had turned hostile. According to the learned amicus curiae, the prosecution case itself discloses the existence of prior disputes relating to a vehicle transaction between t