SANTHOSH vs STATE OF KERALA

The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C 584/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. He faced prosecution

in the trial court under Sections 332, 224, 294(b), 506 (II) and 341 I.P.C, on the allegation that when the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police,

Adimaly proceeded to arrest him in execution of a warrant of arrest issued from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly in

C.C.354/1994, he assaulted the Assistant Sub Inspector, intimidated him, and also escaped from the custody of the Assistant Sub Inspector. The

Assistant Sub Inspector submitted a report before the Sub Inspector and on this complaint, a crime was registered. After investigation, the Police

submitted final report in court.

The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and

proved Exts. P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 332, 224 and 506 (II) I.P.C. He was not found guilty

under Sections 294 (b) and 341 I.P.C. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, and to pay fine of Rs.

1000/- under Section 332 I.P.C, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 224 I.P.C, and to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 506 (II) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

dated 23.7.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thodupuzha with Crl.A 233/2004. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Special Judge for NDPS Cases), Thodupuzha found the accused not guilty under Section 506 (II) I.P.C, but the conviction under Sections

332 and 224 I.P.C was confirmed. The sentence under those Sections was also confirmed in appeal. Now the accused is 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 entire materials, I find that the conviction under Section 224 I.P.C in this case is liable to be be

set aside and the conviction under Section 332 I.P.C is liable to be altered appropriately. PW6 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who made

complaint in this case. PW1 to PW3 turned hostile. The incident allegedly happened at a running bus. PW9 examined as independent witness also

turned hostile. The case of the prosecution is that when PW6 proceeded to arrest the accused at a running bus, the accused assaulted him, inflicted

injuries on his body with a sharp edged knife and escaped from custody. According to PW6, the incident happened during the execution of the

Ext.P3 warrant of arrest issued from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. On a close examination of the Ext.P3 warrant of arrest, I

find something suspicious. Of course, it is a warrant of arrest issued from the court, and it was issued on 1.10.1996. The reverse endorsement on

this shows that a Police Constable was authorised by the Sub Inspector to execute the warrant. The date of hearing noted in the warrant initially is

17.10.1996. As the warrant could not be executed in time, the date was extended till 28.11.1996. The date of issue is also seen corrected in the

warrant. Normally such a correction will not happen in the trial court. When the Police could not execute a warrant in time, the court will give a

different date for execution of warrant. The date on which the warrant is issued will never be corrected in the court, but the Ext.P3 warrant

contains such a correction. This creates some suspicion regarding the prosecution case as regards Section 224 I.P.C. The warrant, on the reverse

page, contains an endorsement made by the Sub Inspector authorising the Assistant Sub Inspector to execute the warrant. It is not known what

report was filed by the Police Constable in court on 17.10.1996. A warrant once endorsed to a Police Constable will be endorsed to another

Police Constable only on a report by the first officer. In this case, without a report from the Police Constable, the Sub Inspector made an

endorsement in the name of the Assistant Sub Inspector on 12.11.1996. A corresponding correction is also there in the warrant regarding date of

issue. I find reason to believe that the endorsement dated 12.11.1996 on the reverse of Ext.P3 warrant was subsequently made by the Police

falsely to make it appear that the Sub Inspector had authorised the Asst. Sub Inspector to execute the warrant by 28.11.1996. The warrant was

initially given to a Police Constable, and there is nothing to show that he had made attempts to execute the warrant. When the endorsement made

on the reverse page of warrant is really suspicious as regards the claim of the Assistant Sub Inspector, I find it not proper and legal to sustain the

conviction under Section 224 I.P.C, because there is no satisfactory evidence to show that PW6 was authorised by the Sub Inspector to discharge

the official function of executing the Ext.P3 warrant.

Now the question is whether the conviction under Section 332 I.P.C can be sustained. Here also, what is required is evidence regarding the

official status of the person injured. What is punishable under Section 332 I.P.C is voluntary infliction of injury on the body of a public servant in

the discharge of his official duty. Of course, as regards the official status of PW6, there is no dispute. The independent witnesses turned hostile in

this case. However, PW6 has given evidence regarding the injury sustained by him. The Doctor''s evidence read along with the wound certificate

also shows that PW6 had some injuries including an incised wound on his fingers. Incised injury cannot be inflicted with hand. Such injuries

described in the wound certificate can be inflicted only with a sharp edged weapon. It is true that the weapon could not be seized during

investigation. But PW6 has given clear evidence regarding the nature of the weapon used for the infliction of injuries on his body. Of course, it is

true that the Sub Inspector has not given explanation as to why the weapon could not be seized. The prosecution case that PW6 sustained injuries

while he was discharging his official duty stands not properly and satisfactorily proved because the endorsement on the Ext.P3 warrant is

suspicious. However, it is a fact that PW6 had sustained some injuries on his body. His evidence convinces the court that the injuries were inflicted

by the accused with a weapon. This is punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. Thus, I find that though the offence under Section 332 I.P.C is not

convincingly proved, a clear instance of infliction of simple injury with a weapon punishable under Section 324 I.P.C is well proved in this case. Of

course, the injuries are simple in nature. The incident happened in 1996. Now we are at the beginning of 2018. On a consideration of all the

relevant aspects including the long lapse of years, since the date of incident, I feel that imprisonment till rising of the court and a direction to pay

compensation to the victim will do justice in this case.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is found not guilty under Section 224 I.P.C and he is acquitted of the

said offence in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against him under Section 224 I.P.C will stand set aside. However, on the finding

that simple injuries were inflicted on the body of PW6 by the accused, the conviction under Section 332 I.P.C is altered to one under Section 324

I.P.C. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the court under Section 332 I.P.C will stand set aide and the accused is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment till rising of the court under Section 324 I.P.C. In view of the above modifications, the revision petitioner is also directed under

Section 357(4) Cr.PC to pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to PW6. In case of default, the accused will have to undergo a default sentence of

simple imprisonment for three months. He will surrender before the trial court to serve out the modified sentence and remit the amount of

compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and recover the amount of

compensation, or enforce the default sentence.