AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C 86/1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. They along with two others faced prosecution before the court below under Section 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C, on the allegation that at about 5 p.m on 5.6.1994, they assaulted the de facto complainant Prakasan in front of the Loyal English Medium School at Vennala, and they inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body with weapons like dagger, sword etc.
The Police registered the crime on the basis of the first information statement given by the said Prakasan at the Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam. He was first taken to the Ernakulam Medical Centre, from where he was referred to the Specialist Hospital. After investigation, the Police submitted final report in court against four accused. All the four accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C.
The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 and MO2 weapons of offence were also identified during
trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.
On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty. The accused Nos.3 and 4 were found not guilty of any of the offences and accordingly they were acquitted. On conviction, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each under Section 326 I.P.C, and to pay a fine of 5000/- each and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 341 and
323 I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed under Section
324 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 14.6.2001, the accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A 473/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 20.8.2003. Now the accused are
before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I could not find any illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the conviction made by the courts below concurrently. PW1 to PW3 examined as independent witnesses in the trial court turned hostile. The material evidence is only that of the injured examined as PW4. PW6 and PW8 are the Doctors who examined the injured at the hospital and issued the wound certificates. The injured was first examined at the Ernakulam Medical Centre by PW6 and he was referred to the Specialist Hospital where he was examined by PW8. These two doctors have given evidence proving the simple and the grievous injuries sustained by PW4. One argument was raised during the proceedings in the court below that the Doctor's had not stated during investigation that any of the injuries is grievous in nature.
This is not something fatal. The Doctors duty is only to note the injury seen by him on examination. He will have to explain during trial whether any of the injuries is grievous in nature, and also why it is grievous in nature. It is only a
matter of evidence during trial. Just because the Doctor did not specifically record any injury as grievous in the wound certificate, the grievous injury will not become simple in nature. What is grievous is always grievous, whether it is specifically recorded so in the wound certificate or not. I find that there is clear medical evidence in this case given by PW6, PW8 and PW10 proving the injuries including the grievous hurt sustained by PW4.
Of course, there is only the evidence of PW4 on factual aspects. He has given clear and convincing evidence against the accused Nos.1 and 2, and he is definite that the severe injuries were inflicted by these two accused. As against the accused Nos.3 & 4, he could not give any definite evidence. In the absence of such evidence, they were found not guilty by the trial court. PW4 has also explained what injury was inflicted by the 1st accused and what injury was inflicted by the 2nd accused. He was first restrained and assaulted by the 1st accused and when he fell down, he was again attacked by the two accused; one with a dagger and the other with a sword. During trial, PW4 identified the weapons of offence also. I find no reason to disbelieve PW4 or to reject his evidence. I find no reason for interference in revision. The accused could not point out any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below concurrently. I find that the conviction is only to be confirmed in revision also.
Now the question of sentence. The court below imposed only simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. This is quite reasonable.
The sentence imposed under Section 326 I.P.C is simple imprisonment for two years. On a consideration of the various aspects including the long lapse of years since 1994, I feel it necessary to reduce the substantive sentence imposed under Section 326 I.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were very young at the time of the alleged incident. Now 23 years have elapsed since the incident, and the revision petitioners must be now aged around 51 or 52 years. I feel that simple imprisonment for one year will be the adequate sentence in this case under Section 326 I.P.C.
In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C 86/1996 of the court
below is confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The sentence imposed by the court below under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C will stand confirmed, but the jail sentence imposed under Section 326 I.P.C will stand reduced to simple imprisonment for one year. The fine sentence, with the default sentence thereon is maintained.
The revision petitioners will get the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.