The revision petitioners herein are the two accused in C.C 548 of

1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla. They are

husband and wife. The incident of assault alleged in this case occurred

in connection with a property dispute between the first accused and his

sister. The two accused faced prosecution before the court below on the

allegation that at about 5.15 p.m on 1/1/1998, at the property in dispute

the two accused assaulted the husband of the sister of the first accused

and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body with weapons like

stone, brick and bill hook. The police registered the crime on the first

information statement given by the sister of the first accused who is the

wife of the injured, and after investigation, submitted final report in court

under Sections 447, 294 (b), 324, and 326 IPC.

2. All the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and

pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution

examined 10 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P8 documents in the trial

court. The MO1 weapon was also identified during trial. The accused

denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C and projected a defence that, the victim sustained injuries

when he fell down during a scuffle that ensued in connection with the

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 998 of 2007 3

property dispute. In defence, the accused examined a witness as DW1.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not

guilty under Sections 447 and 294(b) IPC. The trial court specifically

found the first accused guilty under Section 326 IPC for the grievous

injury inflicted by him on the body of PW2 and found the second accused

guilty under section 324 IPC for the simple injury inflicted by her. On

conviction, the first accused was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, under

Section 326 IPC and second accused was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section

324 IPC.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 29/12/2004, the

accused approached the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta with

Crl.A.No.360 of 2005. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Adhoc-III), Pathanamthitta confirmed the conviction and sentence, and

accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused are before this court

in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and

sentence.

4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find

that, there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence as against the

second accused, to sustain the conviction against her under section 324

IPC, but evidence well satisfies the court that the first accused had

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 998 of 2007 4

inflicted a grievous injury on the body of the victim with a stone. There is

no evidence regarding the size of the stone or the force with which the

stone was used to inflict injury. I find that, the conviction under section

326 IPC is liable to be altered to section 325 IPC.

5.

Of the 10 witnesses examined in the trial court, PW2 is the

victim of offence and PW1 is his wife. PW1 is none other than the direct

sister of the first accused. The alleged incident happened in connection

with a long standing hostility between them regarding a civil dispute, and

the incident of assault happened at the property in dispute. That is why

the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 447 IPC. PW3

is a person of the locality and PW5 is a neighbour. PW5 did not support

the prosecution. PW3 supported the prosecution and he stated that, he

had seen the accused inflicting injuries on the body of PW2, while he was

walking along the adjacent Panchayath road. The evidence given by

PW3 was assailed on the ground that, he is a person residing far away,

and he had no reason or occasion to witness the incident. But PW3

affirmed in evidence that he had seen the incident. I find no reason t