BALAN vs STATE & ANR

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 326 I.P.C in C.C 325/1997 of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 3 p.m on 16.3.1997, on the public road near his

house at Cheruvannur, he assaulted the de facto complainant Chathu in connection with a dispute regarding installation of a water supply tap, and

inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body with a reaper. The Police registered the crime on the basis of the First Information Statement

given by the said Chathu. After investigation, the Police submitted final report in court.

The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined nine

witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P4 documents in the trial court. The MO1 weapon was also identified during trial. When examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that the de facto complainant sustained fracture when he

fell down from a compound wall. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for three years. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.A 205/2002. In

appeal, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated

17.11.2004. Now the accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

On a perusal of the materials, I find no reason or scope for interference in revision in the findings and conviction made by the courts below

concurrently, on the ground of any illegality or irregularity. PW1 is the de facto complainant who sustained injuries in the alleged incident of assault,

and PW5 is the Doctor who examined him and issued the Ext.P3 wound certificate. PW2 and PW3 are the independent witnesses who witnessed

the incident. The evidence given by PW1 regarding the injuries sustained by him is well corroborated by the evidence of PW5 who proved the

Ext.P3 wound certificate. The medical evidence proves that the de facto complainant had sustained fracture of the lower end of his right radius,

multiple small abrasions over the right forearm and left forearm, tenderness and pain over the right upper arm, and tenderness over the chest. That

PW1 had sustained a grievous hurt is proved by the medical evidence.

PW2 and PW3 have given consistent and definite evidence proving the factual aspects of assault. They have well corroborated PW1 on all

material aspects. All the witnesses are consistent that at the place of incident, the accused assaulted PW1 and inflicted injuries on his body with a

reaper piece. During trial, PW1 and PW3 identified the MO1 reaper piece. This object was seized by the Police as per the scene mahazar. PW7

is the Assistant Sub Inspector who investigated the case. His evidence is that the reaper piece was shown by an eye-witness. This is the evidence

of PW3 also, that the weapon was shown by him to the Police, when the Police came there for investigation. All the witnesses are definite and

consistent regarding the assault made by the accused, and the medical evidence also proves the grievous hurt sustained by PW1. I find that the

prosecution case stands well proved,and I find no reason to disbelieve or reject the evidence given by PW1 to PW3. There is nothing to show that

there was any flaw or irregularity or illegality in the investigation conducted by PW7. Thus, I find that the conviction is liable to be confirmed in

revision also.

Now the question of sentence. The incident in this case happened in March 1997 and now we are at the beginning of 2018. The long lapse of

about 21 years since the date of incident will have to be considered by the court. The accused was at his prime age at the time of the incident. It

may not be just and appropriate to send him to jail for a long period after 21 years. On a consideration of all the aspects including the age and

circumstances of the accused, I feel that the minimum sentence in view of Section 354 (4) Cr.P.C will be the adequate sentence in this case.

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 326 I.P.C is confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of

accordingly. However, the jail sentence imposed by the court below will stand modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. The

revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to serve out the sentence, on failure of which, steps shall be

taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence.