RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.310/2000 before the Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Perambra. The prosecution was one under Sections 341, 354 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows:- There was previous enmity between PW1 and the accused. Due to the said enmity, on 22.5.2000 at 12 'O' clock in the noon, on the road situated in front of the house of Chathukutty of Naduvannur Village, accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of PW1, wrongfully restrained her, holding her by her hair and caused hurt to her by beating her with a stick, thus committing the offences charged. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1. The accused examined DWs 1 and 2 and marked Ext.D1 medical certificate. The Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand only) with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months. The fine amount was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation. In Criminal Appeal No.711/2003 filed by the petitioner before the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but, modified the sentence of imprisonment to two months upholding the fine and the default sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PW1, who was the injured witness, whose injuries are corroborated by the medical evidence as those could be caused as claimed by the prosecution is more than sufficient to prove the prosecution case. In addition, the evidence of PW2, who came to the scene at the time of incident, which, could not be shaken any cross examination, sufficiently corroborates the evidence of PW1. She also points out that, although the Magistrate held that PW3's evidence does not inspire confidence, that was only on the ground that he was a witness in other cases between the same parties also. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the fact that PW3 was a witness in other cases between the same parties, pales into insignificance, since PW3's evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. It is pointed out that, even assuming that the DW2's evidence can be accepted as the final word, he does not specifically state that the petitioner could not have held PW1 by his left hand and beaten her with the right hand in all circumstances. He only states that the petitioner will have difficulty to do so, whereas he categorically states that the petitioner can beat with his right hand. She also points out that the DW2's credentials are suspicious, when he does not even say that he is a doctor, in chief examination. He does not give his qualifications to be an expert medical witness also. The learned Public Prosecutor also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohar and another v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 606] in support of the contention that the testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that a witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself, in view of which convincing evidence would be required to discredit the testimony of an injured witness. Here, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, PW1, as the injured witness, has given very convincing evidence, which could not be discredited either by cross examination or by any acceptable evidence adduced by the petitioner. Therefore, she would support the judgments of the courts below.