Third accused in C.C.No.351/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi is the revision petitioner herein.
2. It is brought to the notice of this court that accused Nos.1 and 2 already filed revision against the same order as Crl.R.P.No.673/14 and it was partly allowed. So, this court felt that, that can be considered and the revision can be admitted and disposed of today itself after hearing the Counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. So, the revision is admitted and heard and disposed of today itself.
3. The Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, as far as third accused is concerned, there is no acceptable evidence adduced to prove the sharing of common intention to commit the offence and as such, courts below were not justified in convicting the revision petitioner for the offence alleged and the benefit of doubt should have been given in his favour. So, he prayed for allowing the revision.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that courts below on the basis of evidence correctly appreciated and found that the accused including the revision petitioner have committed the offence and rightly convicted them for the said offence.
5. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 12.07.2006 at about 6.p.m, due to political enmity and in furtherance of common intention of all the accused, first accused had threatened the de facto complainant that he will kill him and beaten him with nanjakku and others had also beaten on his head and kicked him and threatened him and thereby, all of them have committed the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Sections 323, 324, 506 (i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed and the same was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them in the prosecution evidence. They have further stated that they have been falsely implicated the case. After considering the evidence on record, the learned magistrate found all the accused guilty under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused including the revision petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.131/2010 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad and it was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Palakkad for disposal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner who is the third accused in the case.
7. It is brought to the notice of this court that accused numbers 1 and 2 filed Crl.R.P.No.673/14 and this court by order dated 25.03.2014 allowed the revision in part confirming the order of conviction, but, modified the sentence imposing fine alone.
8. PWs 1 to 3 are the injured and eye witnesses to the incident. PW1 had categorically stated that while he was standing near the autorickshaw stand, after parking his autorickhaw, the accused came there and first accused threatened him to kill and slapped on his face and hit him with MO1-nanjakku. Third accused namely., the present revision petitioner kicked him and second accused had beaten him and when his brother PW2 came there, he took away the nanjakku from the first accused and threw it away and first accused had beaten him as well. Thereafter, they left the place. People gathered there and took him into hospital and he was seen by PW3 who issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. PWs 2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses to the incident who had witnessed some portion of the incident. They have categorically stated that when they came there, they saw the accused persons beating PW1 and first accused had hit him with MO1 nanjakku as well. PW2 had stated that, on seeing this when came there, he had took away the nanjakku from the first accused and threw it away which was later seized by the police. Though they were cross examined at length, nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence on this aspect. There is no enmity for PWs 1 to 3 to give any false evidence against the accused persons. The medical evidence corroborated the injuries said to have been inflicted by the accused persons on PW1. So, under the circumstances, courts below were perfectly justified in believing the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and coming to the conclusion that the accused persons have in furtherance of the common intention voluntary caused hurt to PW1 with MO1 nanjakku which is a dangerous weapon and also caused hurt to him by beating and kicking and also threatened him which caused fear of death in the mind of PW1 and thereby, all of them have committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. No illegality has been committed by the courts below in arriving at such conclusion and the concurrent findings of the court below on facts on this aspect do not call for any interference at the hands of this court.
9. As regards the sentence is concerned, this court has already reduced the sentence to fine alone as regards accused numbers 1 and 2 are concerned as per order in Crl.R.P.No.673/14. Considering the nature of role played by the present revision petitioner, this court feels that the same yardstick can be applied as regards the revision petitioner also as the imprisonment is not always necessary as regards the first offenders are concerned. So, the sentence imposed by the court below is set aside and the same is modified as follows:
The revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner to remit the fine amount before the trial court. If the Crl.R.P.No.1861 of 2014 : 7 :
fine amount is realized, an amount of Rs.3000/- be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With the above modification of the sentence alone, the revision petition is allowed in part.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge