1.This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 of the IPC and Sections 137 and 147 of the Railways Act, by the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as per judgment dated 14.07.2016 in S.C. No.173/2014, which was partly confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-VIII, Ernakulam, by judgment dated 19.03.2019 in Crl. Appeal No.224/2016. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 05.04.2013, at about 4:15 p.m., while the accused was travelling in the S-11 coach of the Bangalore-Trivandrum Express Train, PW1 and PW2, who were police officers in charge of the said coach, inspected the passengers in the said coach and found that the accused was illegally travelling without a ticket for the sleeper coach. When the accused was subjected to questioning, the accused splashed chilli spray on their faces, and when PW1 & PW2 intercepted the accused, the accused took out a foreign-made knife and stabbed on PW2's forearm, causing grievous injuries, and also attacked PW1, causing him injuries, so as to escape from the custody of PW1 and PW2. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW28 and marked Exts.P1 to P23. MO1 to MO14 were identified and exhibited. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. Thereafter, the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. However, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the defence.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 of the IPC and Sections 137 and 147 of the Railways Act and convicted him accordingly. For the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of rupees Rs. 50,000/- under Section 333 of IPC. In default of payment, the accused was ordered to undergo imprisonment for a period of nine months. The accused was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 137 of the Railways Act and to pay a fine of rupees Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 147 of the Railways Act.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.224/2016 before the Additional Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Ernakulam, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part and modified the findings as well as the sentence imposed on the accused. The conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC were set aside. However, the finding of the trial court that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332 of the IPC and Sections 137 and 147 of the Railways Act was upheld. For the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC, the sentence imposed on the accused was modified and the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offences punishable under Sections 137 and 147 of the Railways Act, the sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the learned counsel, even if the allegations levelled against the accused are believed in their entirety, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 332 of the IPC as well as Sections 137 and 147 of the Indian Railways Act. According to the learned counsel, there is nothing to show that the injured in this case were discharging their official duties at the time when the unfortunate incident allegedly happened. According to the learned counsel, at the time of the alleged incident, admittedly, the police officers who allegedly sustained injuries in the incident were not in official uniform, and none of them has a case that their identity was properly revealed to the accused. Moreover, it was submitted that none of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution had a case that they actually witnessed the material part of the incident in which the injured sustained the stab injury. Hence, the evidence of the independent witnesses is feeble in nature, and the same will not lend any corroboration to the case of PW1 and PW2, the injured witnesses. On these premises, it was urged that the petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court recorded a conviction against the accused after properly appreciating the facts and evidence brought out in this case and, hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is convincing and reliable, and their evidence finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence adduced in this case. Be that as it may, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no further corroboration is required to prove the alleged incident in this case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the scope of interference in the impugned judgment, it is worthwhile to note that the scope of interference in a revision petition is limited. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with the findings of the trial court or the appellate court only when such findings suffer from illegality, impropriety, or perversity. Unless it is shown that the judgment of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court is perverse, unreasonable, or suffers from non-consideration of relevant material or misreading of evidence, interference in revision is not warranted. The revisional court cannot reappreciate the evidence as an Appellate Court and substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

10. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [AIR 1999 SC 981], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

                  “In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”

11. This is a case in which the accused, who was allegedly travelling in a train without a ticket, had attacked the PW1 and PW2, the Sub Inspector of Police and the Head Constable Attached to Railway Police Force. There is a specific allegation that the PW1 and PW2 approached the accused as part of their duty. While inspecting the passengers in the coach, they found that the accused was illegally traveling without a ticket, and when he was subjected to interrogation, the accused suddenly sprayed chilli powder on their face, and when they intercepted, the accused got enraged and attacked them with a knife.

12. The law was set in motion on the strength of the FIS given by PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to RPF, who allegedly sustained injuries in the incident. When he was examined before the court, he vividly narrated all the matters that transpired in this case. During his examination before the court, he deposed that as part of his job he was checking Bangalore-Trivandrum train No.16321 on 05/04/2013 around 4 am. While inspecting the S-11 coach, he was accompanied by PW2, a head constable. On witnessing them, the accused, who was seated in S-11 coach, became embarrassed, and on questioning, it was revealed that he had no reservation ticket or an open ticket to travel in a train. Then, PWs. 1 and 2 introduced their identity, and his luggage was examined, and the accused showed his identity card to PW1 and PW2. While opening the accused’s baggage, he became perplexed and pretended that he wanted to vomit. Then, PW1 and PW2 together took him to the toilet in the coach. While entering the toilet, the accused took something from the pocket of his pants. Then, PW2 caught hold of his back. At that time, the accused sprayed something on the face of PW1. Then the accused took a knife and threatened PW1 to leave him or else he would do away with him. Then the accused stabbed PW2's right shoulder with the knife, and there was also an attempt to stab PW1, but he sustained only a minor injury. According to PW1, then the Railway Police came to the spot. They also inspected the baggage of the accused and found one chloroform bottle, one bottle containing chilli spray, a cable tag, one mask, one Cello tape, one towel and Jeans.

13. Likewise, when PW2, the other injured witness who sustained injury in the incident, was examined, he also had given evidence on similar lines as spoken to by PW1. Although PW1 and PW2 were subjected to a roving cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discredit or disbelieve their evidence.

14. Moreover, while analysing the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it cannot be ignored that both the said witnesses are injured witnesses. Now, by a catena of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that the evidence of injured witnesses has to be accorded a special status. Likewise, it is no longer res integra that an injured witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the crime scene, and usually such a witness would not falsely implicate a person, particularly since the same would allow the actual assailant to escape. Therefore, convincing reasons are required to discard the evidence of an injured witness, particularly when the same finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence adduced. In the case at hand, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the injured witnesses, is mutually corroborative and finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence adduced in this case. Moreover, the accused does not have a case that PW1 and PW2 had any axe to grind against him. In the absence of any motive for false implication, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be discarded by stating flimsy reasons.

15. Moreover, already the trial court as well as the appellate court had undertaken a detailed evaluation of the evidence adduced in this case and found that they are reliable witnesses. I am also of the view that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 can be categorised as wholly reliable evidence. When a witness is wholly reliable, there is no need to look for any corroboration by other independent evidence to act upon his evidence. More pertinently, as I have already stated, immediately after the incident, both the injured sought medical aid at the hospital, and on medical examination, injuries corresponding to the overt act attributed to the accused were noted and recorded in the wound certificates prepared by the Doctor, which are marked as Exts. P13 and P14. The nature of the injuries itself suggests that the same is not self-inflicted.

16. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as well as the medical evidence adduced in this case, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, from the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5, the independent witnesses, it is established that immediately after the incident, the accused was found standing in the train with a knife smeared with blood. The conduct of the accused in holding a blood- stained knife immediately after the incident is also relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 in the above regard will also lend some corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt and the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 332 of the IPC and Sections 137 and 147 of the Indian Railways Act.

17. However, while considering the question whether any interference is required with respect to the sentence imposed, it is to be noted that the incident in this case occurred in the year 2013. The accused has been defending this case for more than one decade. Moreover, no criminal antecedents have been pointed out against the accused. Having considered all the above aspects, I am of the view that some leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence.

                  In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Without altering the finding, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is modified as follows:-

                  1) For the offence punishable under Section 137 of the Indian Railways Act, the accused is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

                  2) For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Railways Act, the accused is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred and fifty only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

                  3) For the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

                  4) Set-off is allowed in accordance with law.