K. MOHANAN Vs. RAJAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 326 IPC in C.C. No.181/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. The de facto complainant in this case is the first cousin of the accused. Though they are close relatives, they have not been on good terms for years. The accused faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 11 p.m. on 7.5.1993, while the de facto complainant was going to his house along with one Muraleedharan from the house of one Divakaran Pillai after some talk in connection with some other matter, the accused who had been waiting stealthily on the way, suddenly attacked the complainant, and inflicted grievous injuries on his body with a stick, due to the previous enemity. The de facto complainant was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Aluva, where he gave a statement to the police. The police did not register any crime on the said statement. The complainant thereafter directly approached the court and filed a complaint against the accused. The said complaint was forwarded for investigation to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 On investigation, the police found that the complaint happened to be made on some mistake of facts, and accordingly, the police referred the crime. Notice was also served on the complainant. Being aggrieved by the action of the police, the de facto complainant filed a protest complaint before the learned Magistrate. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate conducted necessary enquiry, and took cognizance as C.C. No.181/1997 under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506(ii) IPC. After cognizance, summons was issued to the accused.

(2.) On the basis of the pre-charge evidence adduced by the complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C., 1973 the learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 and P2 documents. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence, he examined himself as DW1 with the permission of the court under Section 315 Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. On the other allegations, he was found not guilty. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 326 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed by the court under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 2.1.2001, the accused approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A. No.88/2002. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.