SUSHIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 410/94, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 326, 324 and 341 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd accused is absconding. A1/revision petitioner is sentenced to, as modified by the appellate court, undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 326 IPC. No separate sentence is awarded for the rest of the offences.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 27.08.1994 at about 11 a.m. the defacto complainant was wrongfully restrained by the accused and both the accused beat him with iron rods. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 8, Exts. P1 to P5 and MO1, iron rod. PW1 is the injured. PW2 is the occurrence witness. PWs 4 and 5, two other occurrence witnesses turned hostile. PW6, doctor, who issued Ext.P3, wound certificate has proved the same. It is mentioned therein that PW1 sustained dislocation of the right ulna and fracture on the patella of left knee. It is also mentioned in Ext.P3 that he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. The crime was registered on the same day.

(3.) It is the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that the name of PW2, the eye witness who supported the prosecution is not mentioned in Ext.P1, FIS and the nearby shop keepers have not been examined. It is seen from the FIS that the names of PWs 4 and 5 has been mentioned. It is also mentioned in the FIS that others were also present at the scene of the occurrence. I find that the name of PW2 is not mentioned in the FIS cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the version of PW2. As already noted, there is no delay in recording the FIS. The incident had taken place at 11 p.m. and the FIS was recorded at 5 p.m. It may not be possible to notice the persons present when a person is being attacked. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not vitiated by any pronounced infirmity. No contradictions in the evidence have been brought out with respect to the previous statement. In the circumstances, I find that the findings of the courts below is supported by proper reasons. The injuries sustained are very serious in nature and includes fracture. Hence, the conviction for the offences mentioned is only to be sustained. The conviction is confirmed.