CHUMMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused who has been convicted and sentenced under S.304 Part.2 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 3 years by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam has filed the appeal. Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the lather of the deceased.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 26-6-1982 the accused with the intention to murder Tomy and with the knowledge that death will be caused to him hit on his eye with the pointed end of a gent's umbrella with force. Tomy sustained very serious injury and he breathed his last on 28-6-1982 at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The accused and his wife were waiting fur a bus on 26-6-82 at about 11 a. m near Ferona Church at Kaipuzha. Tomy came on a cycle from South to north along Kottayam- Neendoor road. The cycle hit the accused's wife and the tiffin carrier held by her fell on the road. The accused became furious when Tomy stated that the incident happened as the accused and his wife tried to cross the road. Enraged by 'be incident the accused hit Tomy with force on his eye with the pointed end of his umbrella.

(3.) Pws. 1 and 2 removed Tomy in a car to the Medical College Hospital Kottayam PW 1 gave the first information statement (Ext. P1) before the police. PW 1 deposed that he was standing in the veranda of Antony's pan shop, that he saw Tomy coming on a cycle, that the accused and his wife tried tot cross the road, that she was hit by the cycle, that the tiffin carrier which was with her fell down, that Tomy stated that the incident happened as the accused and his wife crossed the road, that the accused used abusive words against Tomy and that he poked his umbrella is pointed end into Tomy's eye PWs 1 and 2 along with Tomy boarded a bus to go to Kaipuzha Hospital. As Tomy lost his consciousness he was taken in a car to the Medical College Hospital Kottayam. PWs 2 and 4 testified coroborrating the evidence of PW 1 in all material particulars. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination to discredit their testimony. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the accused was responsible for the injury sustained by Tomy. Presence of PWs 2 and 4 was stated by PW 1 at the earliest opportunity when he gave Ext. P1 first information statement.