MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petition by the accused in C.C. No. 231/1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly, who lost the appeal filed against conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc II), Thodupuzha. The appellant was charged with an offence under Section 326 I.P.C. During the course of trial, nine witnesses were examined and five documents were marked on the prosecution side. MO1 is the material object. Ext. D1 is the defence evidence. After considering the evidence, learned Magistrate convicted the revision petitioner on an altered charge under Section 324 I.P.C., instead of Section 326 I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge on a reconsideration of the entire matter found that the conviction and sentence ordered by the court below were proper and dismissed the appeal. Challenging that finding, the revision petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) PW 1 is the injured witness. On 06 -03 -1997, while he was plucking pepper from pepper vine, the revision petitioner trespassed into his property and attacked him with MO1 chopper causing an incised wound as revealed by Ext. P2 wound certificate. It is the case of PW1 that after inflicting the injury, the revision petitioner ran away to his compound with the chopper. He gave Ext. P1 F.I. Statement to the police. PW1 subjected to cross examination. It came out in evidence that there was property dispute between the revision petitioner and PW1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that PW1 suffered an injunction order directing not to enter the property of the revision petitioner. Knowing fully well, he trespassed into the property and plucked pepper from the vines. The revision petitioner was only exercising his right to private defence provided under Section 104 I.P.C. The case that the revision petitioner inflicted a cut injury by MO1 chopper is stoutly denied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On going through the testimony of PW1, I find that in spite of cross examination, the case spoken to by him remains credible.