Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 1 2025:KER:27407 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 283 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.A NO.109 OF 2017 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.45 OF 2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOCHI REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: XAVIER @ CHINNACHAN AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, CHETTIVELIKKAKATH HOUSE, MALIKA PARAMBU, CHELLANAM, PIN-682008. BY ADVS. SMT.K.G.MARY SRI.ARUN P. ANTONY SRI.SAILAJ RAMACHANDRAN SRI.N.V.VINAY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMALY POLICE STATION. BY SRI.RENJITH GEORGE-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEAIRNG ON 20.3.2025, THE COURT ON 27.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 2 2025:KER:27407 M.B.SNEHALATHA, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th March 2025 O R D E R The revision petitioner/appellant in Crl.A No.109/2017 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that on 13.6.2014 at around 8.30 pm near to Malikappuram bus stop at Chellanam, A1 and A2 who are brothers, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of PW1, attacked PW1 and inflicted grievous injuries to him. A1 dealt a blow on the right eye of PW1 with a granite stone. A2 manhandled PW1 and abused him in filthy language 3. After investigation, the police laid final report against both accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 294(b) r/w 34 IPC. 4. After trial, the Assistant Sessions Court, which tried the case found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences punishable under Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 3 2025:KER:27407 Sections 307, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences. 5. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein, who is A2 in S.C.No.45/2015 preferred Criminal Appeal No.109/2017 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part; the conviction of A2/revision petitioner herein for the offences under Section 307 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC was set aside by the Sessions Court. A2 was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days and to pay a fine of ₹1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 6. Assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment in Crl.A No.109/2017, the revision petitioner/A2 has preferred this revision contending that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective; that apart from the evidence of PW1, there is no independent evidence to prove the incident; that there are omissions and contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and therefore his version is not reliable and cannot be acted upon. Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 4 2025:KER:27407 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding in the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court and contended that there is ample proof against the revision petitioner/A2 and that he committed the offence under Section 323 IPC and therefore, there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against A2/revision petitioner for the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC. 8. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment in Crl.A No.109/2017 needs any interference by this Court. 9. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. The specific version of PW1 is that on 13.10.2014 at around 8.30 pm. while he was returning home after purchasing goods from a nearby grocery shop, A1 hit him on his right eye with a granite stone causing injuries on his eye. Thereafter, A1 bite on his right ring finger. Then A2, who came over there fisted him on his back and as a result of which he fell on the ground. Further version of PW1 is that hearing the commotion, his wife and neighbour one Varghese rushed there and took him to the hospital and he had undergone treatment in the hospital. Ext.P1 is the FI statement Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 5 2025:KER:27407 given by him to the police. PW4 testified that hearing the hue and cry, he had reached the scene of occurrence and when he reached there he could see the injured PW1 who was being taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. 10. The testimony of PW1 that he sustained injury on 13.6.2014 receive corroboration from the version of PW7 and PW9 doctors and from Ext.P7 and P9 medical records. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that A2 fisted on his back on account of which he fell on the ground. 11. The evidence on record proves the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC against the revision petitioner/A2 and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 12. Now the question is whether the sentence against the accused needs any interference by this Court 13. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC, in default of payment of fine accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 14. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 6 2025:KER:27407 pleaded leniency in the matter of sentence and submitted that the revision petitioner is the only breadwinner of the family consisting of his wife and children and there is no criminal antecedents and therefore maximum leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. 15.The prosecution has no case that the revision petitioner/A2 has any criminal antecedents. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days for the offence under Section 323 IPC can be reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and payment of compensation of ₹5,000/-. 16.Accordingly, this revision petition stands allowed in part as follows: a) Conviction of the revision petitioner/A2 for the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC is confirmed. b) The sentence against him is modified and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of ₹5,000/-. In default of paymet of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. If the compensation is realised, it shall be paid to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.283 of 2018 7 2025:KER:27407 Crl.Revision Petition is allowed in part. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith. Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab