IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 171 of 2000()
1. BABU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J
= = = ======== = = = = =
Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008.
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = =
O R D E R
The petitioner herein challenges the judgment of the lower
appellate court as well as the trial court in which he had been
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution case is that on 17.4.95 at about 4.30
P.M., the petitioner had caused hurt to the de facto
complainant/PW1 with dangerous weapon, M.O. 1. After the
incident, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Koyilandy
at 5.45 P.M., wherein he was treated. On 17.4.95, on the basis
of the statement given by him at 6.30 P.M., crime No. 224/94
was registered in the Koyilandy Police Station for the offence
punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. After the investigation, a
final report was filed in the trial court namely, Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Koyilandy, wherein cognizance was taken and
instituted C.C. No. 901/95.
Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 2
3. During the trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined , Exts.P1
to P5 were marked on the side of the prosecution and M.O.1 is
marked as material object. No evidence was adduced from the
side of defence. After the prosecution evidence, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He took a stand of total
denial. The trial court, by judgment dated 20.11.98 in
C.C.No.901/95, found the accused guilty of the offence under
Section 324 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and it was further ordered
that out of the fine, an amount of Rs. 3000/- will be given to the
injured by way of compensation. Challenging the above order of
conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused had preferred
Crl. Appeal No. 468/98 before the IInd Addl. Sessions Court,
Kozhikode. By judgment dated 13.12.99, the above appeal was
dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the
trial court. This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the
above order of conviction and sentence concurrently passed by
the lower courts.
Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 3
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused, Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, and also the learned
public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through
the evidences and also the documents available on record.
According to him, PW1 is not at all a reliable witness and his
evidence cannot be accepted for convicting the petitioner. I have
gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the lower
appellate court. On the basis of the endorsement contained in
Ext.P3 wound certificate, the learned counsel submitted that
PW1, who is the de facto complainant and the injured has no idea
as to who is the aggressor and nothing mentioned in Ext.P3
wound certificate. It is stated as follows:
PW1 has no case that on the basis of the blow, he was
unconscious. On the other hand, in his deposition he had stated
in positive that though he had received a blow, and had fallen but
not unconscious. In Ext.P3 wound certificate also, what stated by
the Doctor is that he consumed alcohol and he was under its
influence at the time of examination. If, that be the case, non
Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 4
mention of the name of the accused assumes importance. It is
relevant to note that even though the incident was at 4.30 P.M.,
and he was admitted in the hospital at 5.40 P.M., the FI
statement was recorded only in the evening of next day. In the
meantime, the petitioner has got time to pick and choose and to
arrange the persons who are accused. Therefore the defence
version cannot be rejected. It is also relevant to note that in the
first information statement, the names of three persons are
mentioned as eye witnesses out of which only Janaki Amma was
examined as PW7, who denied prosecution case and turned
hostile to the prosecution. The other two persons, whose names
though mentioned in the first information statement, were not
examined by the prosecution. But, PW2 and PW3 whose names
were not mentioned in the first information statement,
subsequently were cited as witnesses. De facto complainant who
is the injured, is not capable to disclose the true position of the
incident. It appears to me that there is an attempt from the side
of prosecution to create “a case”. Therefore, the prosecution
case itself is under the shadow of doubt especially the
prosecution witness could not instill the confidence of the court.
Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 5
Apart from the above aspect, it appears that the incident had
taken place during 17.4.95 and now we are in 2008. In the light
of the above, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to
establish the case beyond doubt, and consequently the petitioner
is entitled to an acquittal.
In the result, the judgments of the lower appellate court as
well as the trial court are set aside and the accused is acquitted
of the charge levelled against him and his bail bond, if any, will
stand cancelled. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed.
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE
bkn/-