RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three accused persons in this case -- we are here concerned only with the first two -- were tried by the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad on charges under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate convicted the 1st and 2nd accused under Sections 323, 324 and 320 of the Code (presumably read with Section 34, although that was not expressly stated) and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, awarding no separate sentences for the other offences. The 3rd accused he acquitted, and that acquittal is not questioned. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, while confirming the conviction and sentence of the 1st accused, altered the conviction of the 2nd accused to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced his sentence to a fine of rs. 75/- with a default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge was of the view that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was not attracted. Accused 1 and 2 have come up in revision while in calendar revision, notice was issued to them to show cause "why the conviction should not be altered to become one under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and/or sentence enhanced".

(2.) IT is the admitted case that the accused, who are supporters of the Communist party, were on bad terms with P. W. 1. , the victim of the alleged assault, who is a supporter of the Congress Party. Feelings became particularly embittered during the general elections held in February, 1967 in which the accused's party emerged as victors. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 shows that on the evening of the 6th may, 1967, accused 1 and 2 went to P. W. 1's tea shop, picked up a quarrel with him, and then dragged him to the yard of the shop and beat him with cudgels. Among the persons who gathered at the spot on hearing P. W. 1's cries was the 3rd accused who was carrying a knife. The 1st accused snatched the knife from the 3rd accused and made three vain attempts to stab P. W. 1 with it, P. W. 1 cleverly avoiding the blow on each occasion. The 1st accused then dropped the knife and beat P. W. 1 with his hands. P. W. 1 ran westwards in order to escape but the 1st and 2nd accused pursued him, the 1st accused picking up the knife which he had earlier dropped. The 2nd accused caught hold of P. W. 1. and pushed him towards the 1st accused who, thereupon, stabbed P. W. 1 on the right side of the chest causing, as the medical evidence shows, an incised wound 1" X 1/2" penetrating the pleural cavity. (The medical evidence also shows that, in addition to this, P. W. 1 suffered seven contusions of various sizes all over his body ). P. W. 1 fell down and the accused ran away.

(3.) THE Courts below have accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 as true, and we see no ground whatsoever for interference in revision with their appreciation of the evidence. That P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 who were also examined as eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case in full, that P. W. 6 was not a witness named in the first information, that the doctor, P. W. 7, who treated P. W. 1 (and, surprisingly, gave evidence not with reference to the contemporaneous record he must have made in the accident register or in the wound certificate issued by him but with reference to the record made in the discharge certificate, Ext. P-5, issued a week later) deposed to the effect that the stab injury suffered by P. W. 1 was on the left side of the chest whereas actually it was on the right side, are hardly grounds that persuade us to disbelieve P. Ws. 1 and 6 when the Courts below have believed them. Nor do we think that the 1st accused's plea and evidence of an alibi, or the 2nd accused's case that P. W. 1 suffered the injuries by a fall on some pieces of sawn timber in the course of a scuffle, merit serious notice.