K. JAYARAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 102/91 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, as well as appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 5/98 on the files of Sessions Court, Manjeri. He faced trial for the charge alleging the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally, the charge was filed under Sections 324 and 447 only but later, the offence under Section 326 was also added in the charge. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 24.8.1988, at about 6.30 a.m. the accused criminally trespassed into the property of CW1 and beat her with a spade on her head and shoulder and when CW2 and 3 arrived at the place of occurrence by hearing hue and cry of CW1, the accused inflicted some injury on the head of CW2 with the above dangerous weapon and stamped on her abdomen and at the same time the accused beat CW3 on his right wrist and chest with the spade and thereby, the accused is alleged to have committed the above offences charged against him.

(2.) GOING by the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it is seen that, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined, Ext. P1 to P7 and MO1 were marked for the prosecution, but no evidence had been adduced in defence. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and thereafter he faced trial. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 324 and 326 of the I.P.C., but acquitted of the offence under Section 447 of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. He was again sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. The sentence shall run consecutively, if the fine amount is realised Rs. 5,000/ - shall be given to P.W. 1 as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the courts below miserably failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in its correct perspective. The appreciation of evidence by the court below has been perverse and it has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Though, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused on three points. Firstly, according to the learned counsel, the charge framed by the trial court is not specific. Secondly, the investigation had been conducted by a Head Constable, who was not competent to conduct investigation under law. Thirdly, the independent witnesses had been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. But the conviction is based on the solitary evidence of P.W. 1 and PW3, who are the injured.