The revision petitioners herein are the five accused in C.C.No.288 of 1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara. On the allegation that they assaulted one Rajeevan and his son Sominraj and inflicted injuries on their body with knife at about 7.30 p.m. On 18.02.1997, in prosecution of the object of an unlawful assembly formed by them to attack the said Rajeevan and his son, the revision petitioners faced prosecution before the learned Magistrate under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate framed charge against them under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with 149 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during trial and marked Exts.P1 to P6. Of course, the weapon of offence was not seized and produced in court. No evidence was adduced in defence by the accused during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found them guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different terms under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC and also under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. Though found guilty under Section 143 IPC, no separate sentence was imposed under the said section.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners approached the Court of Sessions Thiruvananthapuram with Crl.Appeal No.233 of 2002. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction made by the trial court, but reduced the term of sentence in appeal. Accordingly, in modification of sentence, the revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 147 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 148 IPC. Now the accused are before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and on a perusal of the case records including the evidence given by the material witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 and 2, I find no scope for interference in the findings made by the two courts below. The father and son, who sustained injuries in the incident were examined respectively as P.Ws.2 and 1. These two witnesses have given definite evidence proving the alleged incident of assault in which they sustained simple injuries. Of course, it is true that they had sustained very simple injuries as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 wound certificates. It is also true that the weapon of offence was not seized and produced in court. That by itself is not a reason to make an acquittal or to reject the oral evidence given by the witnesses, if that evidence is acceptable to the court. The oral evidence given by the material witnesses stands supported by the medical evidence given by the doctor examined as P.W.3.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there is some material inconsistency in the evidence given by the material witnesses. The main evidence proving the incident is that of Pws.1 and 2. It is true that there is some slight inconsistency regarding the actual time of incident. But on all other material aspects they are well consistent, and their evidence is fully consistent with the statements in the Ext.P1 F.I.Statement. The only independent witness examined by the prosecution as P.W.3, turned hostile. On appreciation, I find no reason to suspect the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 or to reject their evidence. Their evidence well proves that the five revision petitioners had in fact assaulted them and inflicted simple injuries on their body with knife, and also by beating with hands. The necessary elements and ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 of IPC are well made out by the evidence of the material witnesses. Evidence also well satisfies the court that it was as part of a plan of action constituting unlawful assembly, the five revision petitioners attacked the material witnesses and inflicted injuries on their body. Thus, the necessary elements of unlawful assembly and rioting are also well made out by evidence. I find no illegality or irregularity in the findings made by the two courts below or in the conviction made by the two courts below. I find that the conviction is only to be confirmed in revision also.
6. Of course, the learned counsel made a request to alter the jail sentence to fine sentences in case this Court is not inclined to allow the revision. In the matter of sentence so many aspects will have to be considered. The weapon of offence is not before the court, and the material witnesses sustained only very simple injuries. The alleged incident happened years back, in February 1997. Now, we are in 2014. On a consideration of the long lapse of years and also the mental stress undergone by the revision petitioners over the years on thinking about the conviction and sentence, I feel that the jail sentence imposed by the two courts below can be altered to a reasonable fine sentence. With this modification regarding sentence, this revision can be allowed in part. I feel that `1,000/- each under Sections 143, 148 and 323 of IPC and `5,000/- under Section 324 IPC will be the adequate amount of fine in the present circumstances. From out of the fine amount, if collected, 50% can be granted to P.Ws.1 and 2 in equal proportion.
7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction against the revision petitioners will stand confirmed in revision, but the sentence imposed by the two courts below will stand modified as follows :
The jail sentence imposed under Sections 147 and 148 IPC and under Section 323 IPC will stand altered to a fine sentence of `1,000/- each, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
The jail sentence imposed by the two courts below under Section 324 IPC is modified and altered to a fine sentence of `5,000/- each, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.
50% of the fine amount collected, will be given to PW1 and PW2 in equal proportion.
The revision petitioners are given time for one month to remit the amount of fine in the trial court voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to recover the amount of fine, or enforce default sentence.
Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE AMV/24/5/ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE