1. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 10.06.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.224/2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Palakkad, which arose out of C.C. No.441/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 02.03.2011 at 1.00 p.m., on the pathway leading to a paddy field from Mattayya- Mudavannoor Public Road, the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 and chopped on his face and legs with a chopper and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. MO1 was exhibited and identified. Finally, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.224/2017 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palakkad, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part and modified the sentence imposed on the accused without altering the finding. The sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri.S. Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner, and  Smt. Megha K. Xavier, learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and recorded a conviction without properly appreciating the facts and evidence brought out in this case. According to the learned counsel, the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to take into consideration properly that a counter case was also registered against the de facto complainant with respect to the said incident. The learned counsel urged that when there was a case and a counter, it was obligatory on the part of the trial court to meticulously verify how the incident started, developed and ended. According to the learned counsel, from the prosecution case itself, it is discernible that it was the de facto complainant who offered provocation in this case. Moreover, it was submitted that the allegation of use of weapon is absolutely false and the alleged recovery of weapon is a fabricated one. On these premises, it was urged that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

7. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1, the injured in this case, is well corroborated by the evidence of PW2, an occurrence witness. Moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the occurrence stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in this case and therefore, no interference is required in the concurrent finding rendered in this case.

8. Before examining whether any interference with the impugned judgment is warranted, it must be borne in mind that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. It is well settled that a revisional court may interfere with the judgments or orders of the trial court and the appellate court only when they suffer from illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity. Unless the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse, wholly unreasonable, based on a misreading of the evidence, or rendered without consideration of relevant material, interference in revision is unwarranted. A revisional court cannot assume the role of an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

9. In State of Kerala v. 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.”

10. Keeping in mind the above principles and reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that both the trial court and the appellate court recorded a finding of guilt against the accused primarily on the basis of the cogent and unimpeachable testimony of PW1, the injured witness. From the impugned judgments, it is discernible that the evidence of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of PW2, an occurrence witness, and their evidence remained unshaken despite extensive cross-examination. Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is mutually corroborative and is free from material contradictions or omissions of even a minor nature. While examining whether the courts below committed any serious error, illegality, or perversity in appreciating the evidence, it is pertinent to note that both courts placed considerable reliance on the testimony of PW1 principally on the ground that he is an injured witness.

11. Undisputedly, the evidence of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Now, by a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that the evidence of an injured witness alone can form the basis of a conviction in a criminal case, if the same is convincing and reliable to inspire the confidence of the court. Likewise, it is well settled that an injured witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the crime scene, and normally, he will not falsely implicate an innocent person so as to afford an opportunity to the actual assailant to escape from punishment. Therefore, I find no reason to disagree with the concurrent finding that the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is convincing and reliable.

12. In the case at hand, apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, there is ample medical evidence to show that PW1 had sustained injuries in the incident. From the medical evidence, it is established that immediately after the incident, PW1 sought medical aid from the Government Hospital, Pattambi.

13. The doctor who clinically examined PW1 and issued Ext.P4 wound certificate was examined as PW6. During his examination before the court, he categorically deposed that, on 02.03.2011 at 1.30 p.m., PW1 had approached the hospital with a history of assault by one Sivadasan. According to PW6, on medical examination of PW1, he had noted the following injuries. (i) Swelling 4x4cm left forehead, and an abrasion was also present. (ii) abrasion below left eye (iii)abrasion anterior aspect of left leg (iv) incised wound 2x0.3x0.3 cm on right foot. (v) linear abrasion 4cm on left leg posteriorly (vi) lacerated wound 1x0.2x0.5 cm on left leg. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW6, the doctor and Ext.P4 wound certificate clearly reveals that injuries corresponding to the overt acts attributed to the accused are noted in the medical examination of PW1 conducted immediately after the incident.

14. In short, I find no reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. However, it is apparent that the alleged act was not a premeditated one. The incident appears to have occurred in connection with the grazing of cattle in the property of the accused. Likewise, no criminal antecedents are pointed out against the accused. Having regard to all the above aspects, and the other attending circumstances, I am of the view that some leniency has to be shown in the matter of sentence. The substantive sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court can be modified and the sentence can be limited to one of fine.

15. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Without altering the finding of guilt, the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is modified, and the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonemnt for one month. The fine amount if paid or realised, the same shall be given to PW1 as composition under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With the above affirmation and modification, the criminal revision petition stands allowed in part.