SUNIL Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 341, 447, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No. 72 of 2000 of the Court of Session, Ernakulam. It is a complaint case brought by one Mary. The prosecution case is that at about 6.30 p.m. on 01.06.1997, the accused trespassed into the courtyard of the house of Mary who is his neighbour, assaulted her, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on her body, due to some other dispute between them. Mary was admitted in the hospital on the same day at about 9.15 p.m., and on the basis of the First Information Statement given by her, a crime was registered by the police. When Mary came to know that the police has not incorporated Section 307 IPC in the FIR despite her complaint that the accused had made an attempt on her life, she brought a private complaint before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 341, 447, 323, 325, 354 and 307 IPC, and after complying with the procedure, the said case was committed to the Court of Session where cognizance was taken as S.C. No. 72 of 2000.

(2.) In the crime registered by the police on the complaint of Mary, investigation proceeded, and the police submitted final report therein under Sections 447, 354, 294(b) and 325 IPC. The said case was also committed to the Court of Session where cognizance was taken as S.C. No. 172 of 2001. The allegation of the victim in her complaint before the police is that her modesty was outraged by the accused, and he had also inflicted a grievous hurt on her body. In the private complaint filed by her, she raised an allegation that the accused had made an attempt on her life.

(3.) S.C. No. 172 of 2001 and S.C. No. 72 of 2000 were tried simultaneously by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, North Paravur, to whom the two cases were made over for trial. In both the cases, the accused entered appearance, and he faced simultaneous trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed in both the case. The prosecution examined six witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P4 documents in S.C. No. 72 of 2000. The witnesses were examined in S.C. No. 172 of 2001 also, and all the original documents were proved in the said case which was taken as the main case.