IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 720 of 2002()
1. HARIDASAN @ DASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELATTUR.
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :06/11/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.720 of 2002
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the second accused (A1 died
during the pendency of the appeal) in C.C.No.179/91 in the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna who
stands convicted, as modified by the Sessions Judge, for the
offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months each.
2. The prosecution case is that A1 and A2, father and
son, attacked PW1 on 2.1.1991 at about 7.30 p.m. by the side of
the Kandankulam pond at Melattur and stabbed him with chisels.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 7, Exts. P1 to P5 and MOs’ 1 to 3.
4. PW1, the defacto complainant, who has testified as to
the incident has stated that he had bid the right to catch fish in
the pond of the Panchayath. The incident has taken place at
CRRP720/2002 2
7.30 p.m. on the particular day. He has stated that the accused
and their relatives used to catch fish without his knowledge, the
right of which has been bid by him and he had questioned the
accused about the same and it is on account of the above grouse
that they attacked him. According to him, both the accused
stabbed him with chisels which he has identified as MOs’ 1 and
2. It was he who rendered the FIS i.e., Ext. P1 on the basis of
which the crime was registered. No contradictions or omissions
with respect to his previous statement has been brought out by
the defence. PW2, the occurrence witness has supported the
version of PW1. He has stated that seeing the incident he also
cried aloud and when the neighbours reached there, the accused
left the place. Nothing has been brought out in the cross
examination of PW2 to disbelieve his version as such. PW6, the
head constable, has proved Ext. P5 FIR. Ext. P5 statement of
PW1 was recorded by him at District Hospital, Manjeri. PW7,
the S.I. of Police, recovered MO3 chappel from the scene of
occurrence. The injuries sustained which are noted in Ext. P4
wound certificate has been proved by PW5, the civil surgeon at
the Government Hospital. The following are the injuries
CRRP720/2002 3
sustained by PW1.
(i) incised wound of the upper part of the frontal region-
vertical 5 c.m. X = cm. bone deep injuring the outer
table of bone.
(ii) lacerated injury lower part of the nose involving whole
skin and exposing the cartilage of nose.
(iii) lacerated injury in front of chest 4 cms. below the
right collar bone 3 cms. X 2 cms. skin deep
penetrating.
(iv) lacerated injury right side of chest mid axillary line 3
cms. x = cm. skin deep.
(v) incised wound of right fifth spale horizontally
extending from mid stream to 5 cms. laterally.
(vi) incised wound of right gluteral region 5 cm. X 2 cms.
bone deep injuring mussle, vessels and nerves.
(vii) incised wound of upper part of lateral aspect of left
forearm near wrist 8 cms. X 4 cms.
(viii) incised wound of 4 cms. x 1 cm. just above the left
wrist with transaction of left radial artery. Bleeding
profusely.
(ix) incised wound inner aspect of the left wrist extending
to the palm 2.5 cms. above the wrist extending to Web
spale injuring muscles, tendons and nerves.
(x) incised injury right side of the back just above
shoulder 3 x 1 cm.
CRRP720/2002 4
5. PW5 has stated that the injuries can be caused with
MOs’ 1 and 2. I find that the evidence adduced in the matter
with respect to the occurrence i.e., the version of PWs’ 1 and 2
and the medical evidence clearly established the prosecution
case. Of course, the Sessions Judge has altered the sentence to
one under Section 324 IPC instead of 326 IPC in which the
accused were convicted by the trial court. I find no reason to
deviate from the findings of the lower appellate court. The
conviction is confirmed.
6. Counsel for the revision petitioner has only pleaded
for leniency pointing out that more than 17 years have elapsed
since the date of the incident and that the commencement of the
prosecution (date of the incident is 2.1.1991). It is also stated
that the sole means of livelihood of the family of the revision
petitioner is his income which is meagre.
7. In the circumstances, considering the long lapse of
time, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of
the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to PW1 and
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The
revision petitioner is granted four months’ time to remit the
CRRP720/2002 5
amount of compensation. He shall appear before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinathalmanna on 6.3.2008 to
receive sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl