Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34159
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
MANIYAPPAN SO KOCHUKUTTY AGED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 784/2002
Evidential standards for convictions under IPC sections necessitate clear proof of injury and corroboration, especially in cases involving multiple defendants and complex circumstances.
Headnote:
Assault - IPC - [Section 324, Section 326] - The court confirmed conviction under Section 324 IPC, modified the sentence, and discussed the evidential standards required for proving grievous hurt under Section 326.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with offences under IPC Sections 324 and 326 for assaulting the victims with an iron rod and sword, resulting in injuries. The trial court found them guilty for Section 324 but reversed the Section 326 conviction due to insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's conviction under Section 324 was upheld, while the appellate court found the charge under Section 326 unproven due to lack of proper medical evidence.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that mere inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not necessarily undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution case, particularly regarding established injuries.
Final Decision: The revision petitions are allowed in part; conviction upheld, but sentence modified to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
COMMON ORDER
Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.149/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Cherthala. They were prosecuted by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mohamma in Crime No.1/1997 accusing offences under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations against the revision petitioners are that at 6.30 p.m on 31.12.1996, the accused in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted PW1 and his mother, who was examined as PW2 with an iron rod and sword and as a result, PW1 sustained simple hurt and PW2 sustained grevious hurt. Both of them were taken to the Government Hospital, Cherthala. Since the medical officer was not there, they were taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. On the way, PW1 became unconscious. Therefore, they were taken to KVM Hospital, Cherthala where they had undergone treatment. PW6, a Head Constable attached to Mohamma police station, on getting : 2:
information went to the hospital and recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1. On the basis of Ext.P1, the case was registered. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.
2. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty before the trial court when the charge was framed, read over and explained. They were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that the case was falsely foisted because of the political enmity. However, no defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offence under Section 324 as against all the accused and offence under Section 326 IPC as against accused 1 and 3. Consequently, they were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 324 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Accused 1 and 3 were sentenced to simple imprisonment for : 3:
12 months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 326 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.
3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, they preferred Crl.A.No.23/2000. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court arrived at a finding that Ext.P4 wound certificate relating to PW2 reporting fracture of both bones of the right forearm was not properly proved. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a finding that offence under Section 326 IPC was not established. Whereas it was found that the evidence on record would establish the offence under Section 324 IPC against all the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. While setting aside the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 326 IPC, conviction and sentence for offence under Section 324 IPC was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, these revision petitions were filed. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.849/2002 is the 1st appellant before the appellate court. Petitioners in the other revision petition are appellants 2 and 3.
4. I have heard Sri. P.M. Natesan and Sri, John Joseph, : 4:
the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri. Noushad Thottathil, the learned Government Pleader. Sri. P.M. Natesan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.849/2002 took me through the judgment impugned as well as the evidence on record.
5. PWs 1 and 2, who are the injured, had given evidence in support of the prosecution. According to PW1, while he was walking through the property of one Mythili, near Thanneermukkam School, he was assaulted by the revision petitioners by beating with an iron rod and hacking with a sword and as a result, he sustained injuries. Seeing the assault on PW1 by the revision petitioners, PW2, th
