GEORGE PON PAUL Vs. KANAGALET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the revision petition filed by the present appellant. The High Court was of the view that for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) only the fine was imposed and, therefore, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in addition to the fine imposed.

(2.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was that on 7.1.1993 at about 2.45 p.m. three accused persons trespassed into the house of respondent No. 1 (PW-1) and attacked her husband respondent No. 2 (PW-2). While the said attack was restrained by PW-1, they attacked her also with Vettu Kathi and other weapons and caused injuries to both of them. All the three accused were tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 326, 324 and 325, IPC. The trial Court directed acquittal of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 while convicting the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 452, IPC. The present appellant challenging, the said conviction filed an appeal before the Appellate Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed i.e. confinement till rising of Court and fine with default stipulation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appellant filed Criminal Revision No. 1048 of 2001 before the Madras High Court. Immediately after the conviction was recorded both the victims PWs 1 and 2 filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 935/1999 before the High Court challenging the acquittal in respect of the charges as against A2 and A3 and to enhance the sentence imposed upon A1 for both the offence as the sentence imposed was not adequate.

(3.) Both the revision petitions were taken up and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court found that the acquittal of A2 and A3 does not suffer from any infirmity. It noted that in view of the specific provisions relating to imposition of custodial sentence, the trial Court could not have imposed only fine. The High Court found no merit in the revision petition filed by the appellant questioning his conviction but held that in view of provisions of Section 326, custodial sentence has to be there. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction the sentence was enhanced. Sections 326 and 452 reads as follows :