K. PRASANTHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the said offence by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. The concurrent conviction and sentence are challenged in this revision.

(2.) FACTS briefly: Petitioner along with three others were charge sheeted and tried for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate Court. After trial, first accused alone was found guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC. He was found not guilty of other offences. Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted by the Magistrate Court. As per the prosecution case, on 14.1.1994 at about 7.45 PM, accused 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 and voluntarily caused to assault him by beating with hands and with an iron rod on the head.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that a serious mistake is committed by the courts below in convicting the accused, as the accused is not properly identified by the injured or other witnesses while they were examined in court. He argued that the depositions of the relevant witnesses do not include a specific endorsement by the learned Magistrate that the accused in the dock was identified by the witness or that the answer regarding identification was made pointing towards the accused in the dock. It is essential that in criminal trial the identity of the person who faces the trial should be established. For this to be achieved witnesses to the transaction in question should specifically certify the identity of the person in the dock as the person who committed the offence. He cited a decision reported in Mohammed v. State of Kerala, 2002(3) KLT 41 in support of his argument.