AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petitioners herein are the three accused in C.C. No.435/2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Mananthavadi. The
revision petitioners 1 and 2 are father and son, and the 3rd revision petitioner is the son-in-law of the 1st revision petitioner. They faced
prosecution on the allegation that at about 9.15 p.m. on 9.8.2004, at the house of the 1st accused, rented out to the de facto complainant Umesh,
they all assaulted the said Umesh, and inflicted injuries on his body with objects like stick and stone. The police registered the crime on the
F.I.Statement given by the said Umesh, and after investigation submitted final report in court under Sections 452, 341, 323 and 324 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC. All the accused entered appearance before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them
under those sections.
The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO3 objects were also
identified during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and in defence, they
examined two witnesses. Ext.D1 was also marked on their side.
On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 452 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each under Section
341 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 323 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2006, the accused
approached the Court of Session, Wayanad with Crl.A. No.15/2007. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta
confirmed the conviction under Sections 452, 341 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and found the accused not guilty under Section 323
IPC. The sentence under Sections 452 and 341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed, but the sentence under Section 324 IPC was
reduced to simple imprisonment for six months each, and the fine was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each. Now, the accused are before this Court in
revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that what is at the best proved by the prosecution evidence is the offence under
Section 324 IPC.
The prosecution case is that the alleged incident happened, or the three accused assaulted PW3 at the house of the 1st accused, rented out to
PW3. Of course, if the said house had been in the actual possession of PW3 as a tenant, the accused cannot justify trespass into that house saying
that it belongs to them. The prosecution has proved the Ext.P2 document which shows that the said house belongs to the 1st accused. The entry
made by the accused into the said house occupied by the de facto complainant will constitute house trespass only if there was tenant-landlord
relationship between the accused and the injured, or if PW3 had some sort of possession or dominion over the premises. But, in this case, the
prosecution has not adduced any evidence, or produced any material, to prove such a relationship between the accused and PW3. In such a
circumstance, when the building admittedly belongs to the accused, their entry into the premises will not constitute house trespass. Accordingly, I
find that the conviction under Section 452 IPC is liable to be set aside.
On an examination of the evidence given by PW3 to PW5, I find nothing constituting the elements of the offence under Section 341 IPC. PW3
is the injured, and the others are his friends, who had been at the room, when the accused allegedly came there. Their evidence is that just when
the accused came there, they assaulted PW3, and inflicted injuries on his body with objects like a wooden piece, and a stone. There is nothing to
show that PW3 was in any manner wrongfully restrained. So, I find that the conviction under Section 341 IPC is also liable to be set aside. The
conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC already stands set aside by the appellate court. Now, what remains is the offence under Section
324 IPC.
An instance of assault, wherein PW3 sustained injuries at the hands of the three accused is well proved by the evidence of PW3 to PW5. It
appears that the accused believed that PW3 had some illicit affair with the daughter of the 1st accused. Whatever be the motive alleged, or
whatever be the reason for attack, it stands proved that the three accused had assaulted PW3 and inflicted some simple injuries on his body. The
Ext.P7 wound certificate proved by PW11 shows that when seen at the hospital PW3 had multiple lacerated wounds over the scalp, and an
abrasion 4 x .5 cm over the right shin. All the witnesses identified the MO1 and MO2 objects, with which, injuries were inflicted by the accused.
All are definite and consistent that the three accused beat PW3 on the various parts of his body, and they inflicted injuries with MO1 and MO2. I
find that the offence under Section 324 IPC is well proved in this case.
Now the question of sentence. The alleged incident happened in August 2004. About 14 years have elapsed since the date of incident. PW3
had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. Though not justifiable under the law, the accused would claim some reason to assault
PW3. It is not known whether there was such an illicit affair actually in between the accused and the daughter of the 1st accused. Any way, on a
consideration of all the relevant aspects, I find that the minimum possible sentence under the law, and also a direction to pay compensation to the
victim will do justice to both sides. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioners (accused) are found not guilty of the
offences under Sections 452 and 341 IPC, and they are acquitted of those offences in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against
them under Sections 452 and 341 IPC in C.C. No.435/2004 of the court below will stand set aside. But the conviction under Section 324 IPC is
confirmed. However, the fine sentence imposed by the court below under Section 324 IPC is set aside, and the jail sentence is modified and
reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. In lieu of such modification, the revision petitioners are directed under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C.
to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each to PW3. In case of default in making payment of compensation, they will have to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months each. The revision petitioners will surrender before the trial court within one month from this date to serve out the
modified sentence, and make payment of the compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the
sentence, and realise the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.