The judgment reinforces the principle that clear and corroborated eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction for grievous bodily harm under Section 326 I.P.C.

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C 671/1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. He and his mother faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 324, 326 and 506(i) I.P.C, on the allegation that at about 5.45 p.m on

14.10.1999, they assaulted him in connection with some previous enmity and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body with weapons like iron rode, iron pipe etc. The Police registered the crime on the basis of the first information statement given by the injured, and submitted final report in court after investigation.

2. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and projected a defence that this is a false case foisted against them due to previous enmity in connection with some family dispute and property dispute. In defence, the accused examined a witnbess as DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D5 documents.

3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty ounder Section 326 I.P.C. On conviction, the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and the 2nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. They were also directed to pay a compensation of ₹25000/- each to the victim of offence under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2003, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thrissur with Crl.A.No.413/2003. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thrissur found the 2nd accused not guilty of the offence and accordingly she was acquitted. But the conviction and sentence against the 1st accused was confirmed in appeal. Now the 1st accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

5. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in in revision in the findings or the conviction made by the courts below concurrently against the 1st accused.

6. PW1 is the victim of offence and he is well corroborated on all material particulars by PW2 and PW4. PW3 is only an attestor to the scene mahazar. PW5 is the Doctor who examined the injured at the hospital and issued the Ext.P3 wound certificate. This certificate contains the details of the so many injuries including four fractures sustained by the victim. The defence brought out in the cross- examination of the Doctor by way of suggestion that if a toddy tapper falls from a coconut tree with his weapons or tools for tapping toddy, the injuries noted by him are possible. It is pertinent to note that the defence has no case that the victim sustained those injuries including four fractures in such a fall and there is also nothing to probabilise such a case in defence.

7. PW1 has given definite evidence fully consistent with the versions in Ext.P1 F.I.Statement, as to how he sustained injuries and who inflicted the injuries. Of course, it is true that there is no clear evidence against the 2nd accused. The versions of the victim before the Doctor were also as against the 1st accused. PW4 fairly conceded that he had not seen the 2nd accused inflicting injuries on the body of PW1. Practically, the evidence of PW2 is also that he had not actually seen the 2nd accused inflicting injuries. In the absence of evidence, the 2nd accused was acquitted in appeal by the appellate court, but the evidence of the victim as against the 1st accused is quite clear and blemishless.

8. PW2 and PW4 have also well corroborated PW1 on all material factual aspects. These two witnesses have explained how PW1 sustained injuries, who inflicted the injuries and with what weapon the injuries were inflicted. All are consistent that on the public road infron