High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SUDARSANAN v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 1047 of 1998  RD-KL 5151 (9 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 1047 of 1998()
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.CRL.R.P.NO.1047 of 1998
DATED THIS THE 9th day of March 2007
ORDERThe revision petitioners stand convicted for the offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each with the set off for the period of imprisonment already undergone.
2. The prosecution case is that accused 3 in number, on 10-2-1991 at about 9.30 p.m.the in furtherance of their common intention caused hurt to CW1(PW2) when the victim along with his wife and son were proceeding through the public road to attend a temple festival. The case is that the accused were found squatting in the road obstructing the way which was questioned by PW2 and thereupon the first accused inflicted a blow with a chopper on the left side of his face and the rest of the accused beat him with cycle chain on various parts of his body. The victim was immediately admitted at the District Hospital, Kollam and the F.I.S. was recorded on CRRP.1047/98 -2- 12-2-1991 at 11.30 a.m. Accused No.3 was absconding and Accused Nos.1 and 2 alone stood trial. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted in the testimony of PWs.1 to 5 and EXts.P1 to P4. The prime evidence in support of the prosecution case is that of PW2, the victim and PW3, his wife. PW1 is an independent witness who reached the spot on hearing the distress call of the victim and his family. It is noted in the judgment of the trial court that witnesses 4,5 and 6 could not be examined as the former two were not available in the address given and the last one expired. PWs.2 and 3, husband and wife have testified with respect to the occurrence in a uniform manner. It is stated by PWs.2 and 3 that PW3, the wife was walking just ahead of PW2 as she crossed the road through the trench on the side of the road as the accused were sitting blocking the way. It was then PW2 questioned the accused as to why they are sitting in such a manner and the respondents unleashed a sudden attack. A1 inflicted a cut injury on his face with a CRRP.1047/98 -3- chopper. A2 and A3 beat him with a cycle chain. His wife and child raised an alarm; and on nearby residents approaching the spot, the accused left the place throwing away the weapons. A car was brought and PW2 was taken to the hospital. PWs.3 and 5 have identified the accused and in particular A1, who inflicted the cut injury. PW4, the investigating officer has testified with respect to the formalities of investigation. No contradiction or omission with respect to the previous statements of the witnesses were brought out in the cross examination of PW4. PW1, a resident living just across the road of the place of occurrence has testified that he heard the cries from the road at the time and when he rushed to the spot. 2 to 3 persons were found fleeing from the place and PW2 was found injured and drenched in blood and wife of the injured was near the victim. He went and fetched a car and took the injured to the District Hospital. The only question asked in the cross examination of PW1 is about the distance from the place of occurrence to the hospital. CRRP.1047/98 -4- PW5, the Doctor who recorded the wound certificate has testified with respect to the injuries sustained. The major injury noted is an incised wound 12 x 3 x 2 cm. on the left side of the nose extending laterally and reaching above the lateral end of the left eye brow cutting the bone. The other injuries are multiple abrasions. He has sated that the major injury can be caused as per the alleged cause i.e. cut with a chopper. She has proved Ext.P4 wound certificate.
3. One of the contentions of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is a delay in registering the crime. As per Ext.P4 wound certificate the injured was brought to the hospital at 10.40 p.m. The F.I.R.was registered only on 12-2-1991 at 2 p.m. and the F.I.S.was recorded prior to that i.e. at 11.30 a.m. on 12- 2-1991. There is a delay of about 36 hours in recording the F.I.S. The F.I.S. was recorded at the District Hospital, Kollam. It is seen noted in the F.I.S.that it is only on 12-2-1991 in the morning at 9.30 a.m. that the CRRP.1047/98 -5- intimation was received at the police station. Hence evidently there is no delay from the part of the police. The delay was occasioned on account of the belatedness of sending the intimation by the hospital authorities. As rightly mentioned in the trial court judgment, the delay stands explained.
4. It is further contention of the revision petitioner is that there is nothing in evidence to indicate that there was sufficient light at the place to identify the accused. There is no mention in the F.I.S. as to the existence of light at the spot. But I find that PW2 has sated that there was light which was not so bright and in the above light he could identify the accused. PW 2 has also stated that the light emanated from the lamps situated outside the nearby houses. I find that the above statements have not been challenged in the cross examination. No contradiction with the previous statement has also been brought out. Hence, I find that the above contention of the revision petitioner cannot be sustained. CRRP.1047/98 -6-
5. It is further contended that in Ext.P4 wound certificate the names of the accused are not mentioned. I find that it is well settled that the absence of mention of the name of the accused to the Doctor is no ground to suspect the authenticity of the version. It has also to be noted that the Doctor is not bound to record the names of the accused in the particular column of the wound certificate . Hence, the above contention is without merit.
6. It was also contended that it was brought out in the cross examination that PW2 was not aware of the names of the accused and that the names were supplied by others and that is how the names are mentioned in the F.I.S. Pw2 has stated in the cross examination that at the time of the occurrence, he was aware of the name of A1 alone and the names of others were told to him by the presence who assembled at the spot and his relatives. But he was asserted that he could identify all the accused. As rightly noted by the trial court, it is quiet possible that the persons can be identified, but their CRRP.1047/98 -7- names may not be to the knowledge of the victim. I find that the version of PW2 in this regard is quiet natural. I find that the above is no ground to disbelieve PW2.
7. In the circumstances, I find that the courts below were not at all in error in appreciating the evidence adduced in the matter. The conviction is only liable to be affirmed.
8. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency pointing out that the incident has taken place in 1991 and so far the accused were living under the shadow of the impending imprisonment. Of course the sentence is liable to be modified in view of the above fact. But it has also to be noted that apart from the above circumstance the details of the incident clearly indicated the nature of the accused persons and that they have unleashed violence without any provocation and the injury sustained was really a serious one, that the blow has cut the bone. CRRP.1047/98 -8- In the circumstances the sentence is modified to simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each to PW2 vide Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGEks. CRRP.1047/98 -9-
CRL.R.P.NO.1047 OF 1998
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.