MADALAN SUBAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 369/1993 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur. He was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is as follows: - On 5.3.1992 at about 7.30 a.m. at Thattummal near the house bearing No. PVP. VIII/851 belonging to Puthanparambil Chacko, the petitioner, due to prior animosity towards the complainant on account of a property dispute, attacked the complainant with a chopper with the intention to cause grievous hurt and cut off the left ear pinna of the complainant with the weapon, thus committing an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts. P1 to P6 documents. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 323/1997 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Sessions Court, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment for one year. The judgments of the courts below are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that there is no reliable evidence to prove the occurrence. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted solely on the basis of the interested testimony of PW1. Although PWs 2 and 3 cited as the witnesses for proving the occurrence were examined, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution insofar as the finding is that the left ear pinna was cut, whereas the medical evidence showed three injuries, which would point to the improbability of the prosecution case. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt and at least the petitioner is entitled the benefit of doubt. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner argues for acquitting the petitioner.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.