IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1126 of 2000()
1. T.HARIDASAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NARAYANAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.ELDHO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :12/09/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1126 of 2000
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.12/93 who
stands convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
2. The prosecution was launched by way of a private
complaint. The complainant’s case is that on 16.9.1992 at about
5.30 p.m., the third accused came near to his house and called
him out to the road. When he came out, the second accused
caught hold his left hand and the first accused beat him on his
face as a result of which his spectacles were broken and due to
the piercing of the glass pieces cornea of his right eye was
injured and thereby committed offences under Sections 341 and
325 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellate court convicted the
accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and acquitted for
the offence under Section 325 IPC. A2 and A3 were acquitted by
the trial court itself.
Crl.R.P.1126/2000 Page numbers
2. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 5 and Exts. P1 and P2.
3. PW3 is the complainant. Apart from PW3, PW4 and
PW5 independent witnesses has also supported the prosecution
version. PWs’ 1 and 2 are the doctors of Vijayasree hospital,
Thrissur. PW1 has stated that PW3 was admitted in the hospital
on 16.9.1992 and discharged on 23.9.1992. She has proved Ext.
P1 O.P. card wherein she has stated that he had right upper
right lid tear and lacerated wound of the cornea. She has stated
that she had conducted an operation on the eye on 17.9.1992.
PW3 had also undergone an operation which was conducted by
PW2, another doctor. He has stated that injury can be caused on
account of beating with hands to a person wearing spectacles.
PW2 another doctor who conducted the operation that there is a
permanent deterioration of the vision. PW3, the injured has
testified as to the incident. According to him, the motive was ill
will on account of the quarrel with the children of PW1 and A1.
PWs’ 4 and 5 has fully supported the version of PW3.
4. The contention raised is that it is after about three
Crl.R.P.1126/2000 Page numbers
months that the complaint has been filed. The explanation of
PW3 that he had immediately complained to the police and that
the police did not taken any action was found convincing by both
the courts below. In view of the direct evidence of PW3
supported by PWs’ 4 and 5 as to the incident which stands
unimpeached, I find that the delay in lodging the complaint
cannot be taken as fatal. In the circumstances, I find no reason
to deviate from the concurrent findings of the court below. The
conviction is confirmed.
5. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for
leniency pointing out that the incident has taken place in 1992
and more than 15 years have elapsed since the commencement
of the proceedings.
6. In the circumstances, the sentence imposed for the
offence under Section 323 is modified to imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to
PW3, the complainant and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted
four months’ time to pay the amount of compensation. He shall
Crl.R.P.1126/2000 Page numbers
appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi
on 11.1.2007 to receive the sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl