MUHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, who faced prosecution for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that due to the previous enmity of the accused against PW1, on account of the petition filed by him before the RDO, Ottappalam connected with the property dispute and obstruction caused to the free flow of water through a water channel, on 11.01.1996 at about 11.30 hours, when PWs. 1 and 2 were going to see the water channel by walking, along with the foundation laid by the accused in their paramba, the revision petitioner/first accused beat PW1 with a spade handle on his left leg and he sustained a fracture on his left leg. According to the prosecution PW1 was again beat by the accused by the same spade handle and cause injury on his head. Thus, according to the prosecution the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Based upon the above incident, Crime No.14/96 was registered in Pattambi Police Station for the said offences and after investigation the Police preferred a report against the accused. Since the second accused was absconding the case against split up and refiled as C.C.No.32/1999. During the trial PWs 1 to 11 were examined from the side of the prosecution and produced Ext.P1 to P7. MO1 and MO2 were identified and marked as material objects. Finally, the learned Magistrate came into the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he is found guilty under Section 326 of IPC and accordingly convicted him thereunder. On such conviction, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 = years under Section 326 of IPC.

(3.) AT the outset, it is to be noted that during the pendency of the above revision petition, an unnumbered petition is filed before this Court under Section 320(2) and (6) of Cr.P.C, to alter the conviction to Section 324 IPC and grant permission to compound the offence and according to compound the case and acquit the revision petitioner. The said petition is supported by an affidavit filed by one Viswanathan who is the defacto complainant the injured in the above case. In the said affidavit it is categorically stated by him that the incident arose out of a civil dispute and subsequently, the matter has been settled out of court between the revision petitioner as well as the defacto complainant at the instance of the mediators. As such, the defacto complainant has no grievance against the revision petitioner especially they being neighbors, they want to live in peace and harmony.