Kerala High Court
Manu vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 561 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN CRA NO.110 OF 2021 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, KOLLAM/ V ADDL.MACT
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2021 IN CC NO.842 OF 2012 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA
REVISION PETITIONER/3rd APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED:
MANU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. ARJUNAN, KOTTAKKUZHY KIZHAKKATHIL,
VALIYAPADAM MURI, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE,
WEST KALLADA.P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691500
BY ADVS.
BINU GEORGE
HEMALATHA
AMANTA MATHEW
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.561 of 2024
2
ORDER
Accused No.3 came up in revision aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 324 and 341 IPC and the order of sentence awarded,
which comes to simple imprisonment for six months and a
fine amount of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section
324 IPC and a fine amount of Rs.500/- with default
sentence of simple imprisonment for ten days for the
offence under Section 341 IPC.
2. There are two witnesses to the alleged incident,
PW2 and PW3. The respective wound certificates were drawn
by PW1, the doctor. PW3 had sustained only minor injuries.
PW2 had sustained injury on his occipital region having a
measurement of 4 x 1 cm. The alleged cause of injury is by
the user of an iron rod. PW1, the doctor had given oral
evidence in tune with the main substratum of the
prosecution case that the injury could be possible by the
user of an iron rod. But no material object was recovered
or seized and hence the prosecution has relied on medical
evidence adduced through PW1 and the wound certificates
besides the direct evidence of PW2, the independent
witness and evidence of victim, PW3. The non-detection or
non-recovery of the iron rod, the weapon used for causing
injury may not be fatal in the instant case since both the
courts below relied on the oral testimony of independent
witness, the victim and the medical evidence which would
sufficiently prove the guilt of accused No.3. The specific
overt act is also alleged against accused No.3 who is the
main assailant and inflicted injury on the occipital
region of the victim, PW2. Necessarily, the ingredient
which would constitute the offence punishable under
Section 324 IPC will stand attracted as against accused
No.3. Hence, the concurrent judgment of conviction
deserves no interference.
3. Considering the nature of injury and that there
is only one blow, it is a fit case wherein a lesser
punishment can be imposed. Hence the sentence awarded by
the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court
will stand modified to one month simple imprisonment and a
fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and a
fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 IPC, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The
sentence will stand modified accordingly.
The Crl.R.P. will stand allowed in part accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
sv
