Quick Summary: Kalyanasundaram, accused of attacking someone with an iron rod, went through a legal process that ended with a shorter sentence. The case highlights issues about evidence, how believable witnesses are, and court decisions.
On November 5, 2013, at around 7:30 PM, Kalyanasundaram was said to have attacked a man with an iron rod, causing injuries to his head and limbs. The trial court found him and three others guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, the higher court changed the conviction, focusing only on Kalyanasundaram under Section 324 IPC for causing harm with a dangerous weapon.
"The trial court had found Accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty... and acquitted Accused Nos.5 to 8."
The higher court looked over the evidence again and noticed differences in the number of attackers. It decided that only Kalyanasundaram was guilty, changing his conviction to Section 324 IPC, which is about causing harm with dangerous weapons.
"The appellate court reviewed... and concluded that the increase in the number of attackers to eight was not clearly explained."
Kalyanasundaram's defense said the evidence was conflicting and that there were mistakes in the process. They argued that the first reports only mentioned him, and it wasn't clear if others were involved. The defense wanted the sentence reduced further, pointing out the time he had already spent in jail.
"The petitioner argues... that important evidence is being ignored, due to contradictions among Ex.P1, Ex.P6, Ex.P10..."
Justice L. Victoria Gowri looked at the case, stressing that her power was only to fix clear mistakes. The court found the evidence against Kalyanasundaram believable, especially the injured person's testimony.
"Revisional power is about supervising and fixing mistakes, not re-evaluating evidence like in an appeal."
The court decided to change the sentence to the time Kalyanasundaram had already served but increased the fine to make sure the victim was compensated. This decision aimed to balance punishment with the need to make things right for the victim.
"Justice would be served by adjusting the sentence to the time already served, along with a higher fine and compensation for the victim..."
The court reduced Kalyanasundaram's sentence to the time he had already served and increased the fine to ensure the victim received compensation. This decision aimed to balance punishment with fairness, considering the time that had passed since the incident.
