Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39785
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
SAINULABDEEN NAZEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1720/2002
The case underscores the necessity of concrete evidence for conviction in assault cases, highlighting the weight of medical corroboration for establishing the extent of injuries caused.
Headnote:
Criminal - Conviction - Indian Penal Code - ['Section 341', 'Section 324', 'Section 326'] - The court upheld the conviction of one accused for grievous injury while acquitting another due to lack of evidence linking her to injury, emphasizing the importance of corroborative medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Accused 1, 2, and 3 were prosecuted for causing injuries to the complainant during an assault while they were wrongfully restrained. The incident involved multiple injuries caused with a chopper and an iron rod.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of the first accused, based on substantial corroborative evidence from witnesses and medical reports, while acquitting the second accused due to insufficient evidence linking her to the injuries inflicted.
Issues: Whether the second accused should be convicted based on the prosecution’s evidence and if the sentence for the first accused was appropriate given the nature of the injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that corroborative witness testimony and medical evidence substantiated the first accused's guilt, while lack of injury evidence denied conviction for the second accused.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed; the conviction of the first accused was confirmed with a modified sentence, while the second accused was acquitted.
O R D E R
Revision petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No.168/1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal. They were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadinamkulam in Crime No.73/1992, along with the 2nd accused accusing offence under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The allegations in the final report are that at
8 P.M. on 9/9/1992, while the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1, proceeding to attend a sermon, he was wrongfully restrained by the accused at a pathway in front of the house of one Khadija, in furtherance of their common intention.
Thereupon, the first revision petitioner inflicted injuries on PW1 by hacking with a chopper. The 2nd accused beat PW1 with an iron rod. The third accused, the wife of the first accused, who is the 2nd revision petitioner, beat him with wooden stick and as a result, PW1 sustained simple and grievous hurt. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement recorded by PW6, the Head Constable, the case was registered as Crime No.73/1992. Part of the investigation was conducted by PW6. Later PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the trial court.
3. Responding to the process issued, all the three accused entered appearance. When the charge was framed, read over and explained, all the accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incriminating evidence and took a plea of total innocence. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a finding in favour of the prosecution. Consequently, all the accused were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month, one year and two years respectively for offences under Sections 341, 324 and 326 IPC.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred Crl. A.169/1996 before the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to whom the appeal was made over, by the judgment dated 27/5/2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred. On verification of the records, no revision petition is seen preferred by the 2nd accused.
5. I have heard Adv. Sri. R. Bindu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms. Madhu Ben the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel took me through the impugned judgment as well as the relevant portions of the evidence.
6. PW1, the victim had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. PWs 2 to 4 who are neighbours also would corroborate with the evidence of PW1. The weapons used by the accused were not at all seized or produced before the court. Exhibit P5 is the wound certificate issued by PW8 who was then Lecturer in Surgery of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. His evidence supported by Exhibit P5 wound certificate would show that PW1 had sustained (1) Incised wound 5 x 1 x 1 cm on the frontal region cutting the bone, (2) Incised wound 8 x 3 x 1 cm skin raised flap cutting the muscle and ulna partially with no neurological defect. (3) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm left ear over the meatus, (4) contusion on the left shoulder and right side of chest and (5) skin deep incised wound 8 cm long over the left shoulder. The medical evidence would corroborate with the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. Of course, I don't omit to note that there are some minor variations and discrepancies regarding the injuries infli
