Accused 1 to 3 in C.C No.367/1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur are the revision petitioners. They were involved in offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 323 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate convicted them for all the said offences. They preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri. In that appeal, the appellate court set aside the conviction of accused 2 and 3 under Section 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. The appellate court found that the first accused is liable to be punished for all the offences. Accused 2 and 3 are only to be convicted for Sections 323 and 447 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the accused persons have come up in this revision.
2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attacked PW1 on 21-07-1996 at about 3.00 p.m. The first accused inflicted a cut injury on the scalp of PW1 by using a chopper and other accused persons attacked him with hands. It is also alleged that they criminally trespassed into the property of PW1.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the discrepancy in the oral evidence of PW1 on one hand and PW's 2 and 3 on the other hand was not properly considered by the lower appellate court. According to him, the incongruity in the evidence makes PW1 not believable. I have to bear in mind that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to re-appreciate the entire evidence. What is to be decided in a criminal revision is whether the sentence or order impugned is illegal or incorrect or improper.
5. PW1 is the injured. According to him, he sustained a cut injury. The first accused assaulted him on head from behind by using MO1 chopper. It is true that PW3 stated that the attack on PW1 was from the front side. However, this incongruity cannot be taken as a reason to find that the appreciation of oral evidence is illegal. Ext.P4 is the wound certificate in relation to PW1. PW8 is the doctor, who examined the injured witnesses. Recitals in Ext.P4 would show that at the first point in time, PW1 has narrated the fact that the contusion sustained by him on middle of head was inflicted by a cut injury at the hands of first accused. I find no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW's 1 and 8 and the recitals in Ext.P4 wound certificate.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that if MO1 chopper had been used, the nature of injury would have been an incised wound. What is seen from Ext.P4 is a lacerated wound on the middle of the head of PW1. To cause an incised wound, the blade of the weapon must be sharp. If MO1 chopper was blunt, the possibility of sustaining a lacerated wound cannot be ruled out. Another contention raised by the revision petitioners is that PW1 must have sustained injury on head when he was dragged through a rough surface. Location of the injury makes this contention improbable because it was a long cut injury on the middle of the head. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact entered by two courts that the first accused inflicted a cut injury with MO1 chopper on the head of PW1. PW's 2 and 3 also deposed that they were beaten up by the accused persons by hands committing an offence of Section 323 I.P.C. Indisputably, there was a criminal trespass at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, I find no reason to upset the findings of the courts below.
In the matter of sentence, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that some leniency may be shown. It is also submitted that accused 2 and 3 were only sentenced to pay fine, which they had already paid.
The revision petition is disposed with following directions :
Convictions of the revision petitioners are confirmed. The sentence imposed on the first accused is modified as under :
The first revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) under Section 324 I.P.C. Rest of the sentences are confirmed. If fine amount is not paid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month as default sentence. If fine amount is recovered, it shall be paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The court below shall take step to execute the sentence and intimate PW1 regarding his right to get compensation.
amk All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge