1. The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Thrissur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 323 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC') are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.04.2000, at about 05:00 p.m, the petitioner wrongfully restrained PW4 and punched him upon the face and other parts of the body, and thereafter, when PW6 tried to prevent the above assault, the petitioner hacked him with a knife, causing fracture of right middle finger and cut injury on the left index finger. In connection with the above incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungalur, laid the final report alleging the commission of offence under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and brought on record six documents as Exts P1 to P6. The weapon of offence was identified and marked as MO1.  Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 326 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC. The substantial sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.  A default clause of simple imprisonment for six months was provided for non-payment of the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Out of the fine amount, if realised, an amount of Rs.4,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to PW6. Aggrieved by the above verdict of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed appeal, in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found that the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 341 IPC were unsustainable. Accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the aforesaid offence. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 323 & 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the revision petitioner on repeated posting dates, notice was issued to him intimating the adjourned hearing date, and informing him that the case would be decided in his absence, if there is no representation on the adjourned posting date. The above notice was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’. In the above circumstances, Adv. Mr Gopi Krishna. R was appointed as Amicus curiae to represent the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus curiae representing the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW6 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner wrongfully restrained PW4 and inflicted voluntary hurt upon him, and thereafter inflicted voluntary grievous hurt with a knife upon PW6, when he tried to prevent the physical assault of the petitioner upon PW4. The Appellate Court also relied on the aforesaid evidence, but found that the offence of wrongful restraint is not brought out from the said evidence. However, the Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW6 could be relied on to find that the petitioner inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW4 by punching upon his face and the other parts of the body, and that when PW6 tried to keep apart the petitioner and PW4, the petitioner went to his shop and returned with a knife with which he hacked PW6 leading to fracture on right middle finger and cut injury to the left index finger.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioner pointed out that, except PW6, none of the other occurrence witnesses had formally identified the petitioner at the time of examination before the Trial Court. It is further contended that the time of assault mentioned as 04:00 p.m. in Exts P3 & P4 wound certificates, cannot be reconciled with the time of assault mentioned as 05:00 p.m. in the charge. As regards the former challenge about the failure of PW1, PW2 & PW4 to have dock identification of the petitioner, it has to be stated that the discrepancy in the above regard cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case, since PW6 has categorically identified the petitioner at the time of examination before the Trial Court, and narrated the specific overt acts constituting the offence committed by him. It is not possible to eschew the entire prosecution evidence for the failure of some of the prosecution witnesses to formally identify the petitioner at the time of trial. Thus, the argument advanced in the above regard, cannot be countenanced, in view of the clear and consistent evidence of PW6.

8. The discrepancy in mentioning the time of occurrence in Exts P3 & P4 wound certificates has been considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, and held that the error in the above regard cannot be taken as a reason to discard the entire prosecution evidence. The findings of the courts below in the above regard, cannot be termed as perverse or in gross violation of the basic principles of law. It is well-settled that the entries made by the medical personnel in the wound certificates about the time of occurrence, nature of assault, identity of the offenders etc., need not be given much emphasis or importance in view of the possibilities of errors being stated by the persons who bring the injured to the hospital, and also the possibilities of mistake being committed by the staff of the hospital recording such informations. Therefore, the discrepancy about the time of occurrence in view of the wrong indications in Exts P3 & P4 wound certificates, cannot be taken as a ground to eschew the entire prosecution evidence.

9. On going through the case records and the reasonings in the judgments of the courts below, I am of the view that the findings of the Appellate Court about the commission of offences under Section 323 & 326 IPC by the petitioner, are not liable to be overturned in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.  However, the sentence of simple imprisonment for three years under Section 326 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC imposed upon the petitioner by the courts below, appear to be excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence involved in this case. A sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC will meet the purpose of awarding punishment for the offences found to have been committed by the petitioner.

                  In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part as follows:

                  (i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 323 & 326 IPC, are hereby confirmed.

                  (ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) under Section 326 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC.

                  (iii) In default of payment of the aforesaid fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

                  (iv) Out of the fine amount Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), if realised, Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to PW6 under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                  (v) The substantive sentences of imprisonment provided for the offences under Sections 326 & 323 IPC shall run concurrently.

                  The Registry shall transmit the case records to the Trial Court, along with a copy of this order, for enforcement of the revised sentence awarded upon the petitioner.

                  This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Mr Gopi Krishna. R in addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.