JAYARAJAN @ KUNJUMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 245/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. He and his father faced prosecution in the court below under Sections 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation that at about 10 a.m. on 4.3.1996, they assaulted their neighbours Jayasree and Suja, and inflicted grievous injury on the body of Jayasree and simple injuries on the body of Suja with weapons. The motive alleged by the prosecution is previous enemity due to some property dispute. The accused and the victims are neighbours. The police registered the crime on the F.I.Statement given by the victim Jayasree. The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 324 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The MO1 weapon of offence was also identified by the material witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and projected a defence that PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries in a fall, and not in an incident of assault. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 326 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.2.2001, the two accused approached the Court of Session, Kottayam with Crl.A. No. 85/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam found the 2nd accused not guilty. Accordingly, he was acquitted, and the conviction and sentence against him was set aside. But the conviction and sentence against the 1st accused was confirmed in appeal, and accordingly, his appeal was dismissed. Now, he is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.