IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 807 of 2001()
1. THOMMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.807 of 2001
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. Concurrent findings entered by the courts below that revision
petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 with a stone and the sentence of fine
of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the learned magistrate as modified by the appellate
court to Rs.2,000/- are under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel
contends that there is no reliable evidence to prove the alleged incident. It is the
further contention that prosecution did not produce relevant documents to prove
the injury caused to PW5.
3. Case is that on 2.7.1995 at about 5.30 p.m. on the road towards
the south eastern side of house No.111 in Ward No.IV of Thodupuzha
Municipality, revision petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 with a stone.
Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6. PW1 is the attestor in Ext.P1, mahazar for
scene of occurrence. PW2 though cited to prove the incident, did not support
the prosecution fully. According to him, there was exchange of hot words
between revision petitioner and PW5. Hearing the commotion he came to the
scene of occurrence and found the revision petitioner and PW5 engaged in a
tussle. He denied the suggestion that he was speaking falsehood to help the
revision petitioner. PW3 who is a nephew of PW5 also refused to support the
Crl.R.P.No.807/2001
2
prosecution. PW5, the defacto complainant stated that on the relevant day,
time and place, revision petitioner pelted stones at his back and he fell down.
Ext.P1 is the statement given to the police. PW4 examined PW5 at
Government Hospital, Thodupuzha on 2.7.1995 and issued Ext.P2. PW5 had
superficial abrasion on back of neck, superficial abrasion with contusion over
right eye brow and multiple superficial abrasion on the back of chest. Alleged
history and cause of injury stated by PW5 is that revision petitioner pelted
stones and hit him with a stone on that day at 5.30 p.m. PW4 stated that the
injury could be caused as alleged. PW6 conducted the investigation.
4. According to learned counsel, there was a tussle between the
revision petitioner and PW5, both fell down and the revision petitioner was also
admitted in the hospital for the injury he suffered. But, PW6 denied that
suggestion. It is true that PW5 admitted that he had seen the revision petitioner
in the hospital where himself had undergone treatment. He admitted that a case
was registered against him on the statement of the revision petitioner. But, going
by the version of PW6, it is revealed that neither the statement of the revision
petitioner was recorded nor any case was registered. But he admitted that
intimation was received that revision petitioner was undergoing treatment at
Government Hospital, Thodupuzha.
5. Though PW4 stated that the injuries found on PW5 and noted in
Ext.P2 can be caused by a fall, I am unable to accept that opinion considering
the nature of the injuries. Injury No.1 as per Ext.P2 is superficial abrasion on
Crl.R.P.No.807/2001
3
back of neck while injury No.3 is multiple superficial abrasions on the back of
chest. Injury No.2 is a superficial abrasion with contusion over the right eye
brow. Considering the nature of injuries, the contention that it was caused by a
fall on the ground cannot be accepted. Assuming that revision petitioner was
also admitted in the hospital, there is no evidence to show that he had sustained
any injury. I stated that there is no possibility of PW5 falling down and
sustaining the injuries. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of
PW5 regarding the incident. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety in the finding entered by the courts below requiring interference with
the conviction.
6. So far as the sentence is concerned, appellate court has modified
the fine to Rs.2,000/-. Revision petitioner is employed in the K.S.R.T.C.
Learned counsel submits that sentence might cost him his job. Though that by
itself is not sufficient to show leniency in the matter of sentence, I am persuaded
to take into account the nature of injuries in considering whether further leniency
is to be shown in the matter of sentence. Hence, sentence of fine is modified as
Rs.1,850/-. Out of that, Rs.1,000/- will be paid to PW5 as compensation.
Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part in the following
lines:-
Sentence of fine imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as fine of
Rs.1,850/- (Rupees One thousand, eight hundred and fifty only) failing which, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Out of fine if realized,
Crl.R.P.No.807/2001
4
Rs.1,000/- will be paid as compensation to PW5. Revision petitioner is granted
one month’s time to deposit the fine in the trial court. Bail bond is cancelled.
Crl.M.P.No.3745 of 2001 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks
Crl.R.P.No.807/2001
5
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Crl.R.P.No.807 of 2001
ORDER
4th December, 2008